U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


### January 26,2015 Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis



### Certified Mail -Return Receipt Steven M. Taber TABERLAW GROUP 13 Atlanta Irvine, CA 92620 John L. 

### Watkins Roy E. Hadely,jr. Thompson Hine Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326-4266

Dear Messrs. Taber, Watkins, Hadley, and Hine: BOO Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591



### Re: Virginia One Development, LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta, FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09
Enclosed is a copy ofthe determination ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The City ofAtlanta, Georgia, is not currently in violation ofits Federal obligations set forth inits airport grant assurances and existing Federal statutes with respect to this complaint. Accordingly, the above-referenced matter is dismissed. The reasons for dismissal are set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. The Director's Determination is an initial Agency determination and does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject tojudicial rev1ew. Sincerely,

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis

EnclosureCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



### ..llI HEREBY CERTIFY that onJanuary&, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Director's Determination for FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 addressed to:
Steven M. Taber, Esq. TABERLAW GROUP 13 Atlanta Irvine, CA 92620 staber@taberlaw.com
John L. 

### Watkins, Esq. Thompson Hine Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326-4266 John.Watkins@thompsonhine.com Roy E. Hadly, Jr., Esq. Thompson Hine Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326-4266 Roy.Hadley@thompsonhine.com
Hand Delivered to:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100

Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Virginia One Development, INC, Avery ParkPartners, LLC d/b/a Avery Park, DSH Diplomat, LLC d/b/a Diplomat Townhomes, Colony Creek, LLC, and Crossings Townhomes, LLC, Complainants,



### v. FAA Docket 16-12-09 The City ofAtlanta, Georgia, Respondent.

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on a formal complaint filed in accordance with the FAA Rules ofPractice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (FAA Rules ofPractice), Title 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 16. Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, Avery Park Partners, LLC d/b/a Avery Park, DSH Diplomat, LLC d/b/a Diplomat Townhomes, Colony Creek, LLC, and Crossings Townhomes, LLC, (Complainants) have filed a formal complaintpursuant to Title 14 CFR, Part 16 against the City ofAtlanta, Georgia, (Airport/Respondent). The City ofAtlanta is the owner, sponsor, and operator ofthe Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Georgia. Complainants allege that the Airport has violated Grant Assurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers; Grant Assurance 16, Conformity to Plans andSpecifications; Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use; and Grant Assurance 

### 35, Relocation of Real PropertyAcquisition because it failed to acquire Complainants' property identified inthe ATL Noise Exposure Map (NEM) 1 

### as being impacted by aircraft noise. Complainants argue that "since the ATL NCP has been approved by the FAA, the [Airport] is bound by its grant assurances to comply withthe ATL NCP as it was approved by the FAA."2 

### Complainants also state the Airport "shows a fundamental misunderstanding ofthe Airport Improvement Program, its associated grant assurances and the Part 16 process. Atlanta fails to understand that Atlanta must comply with the grant assurances at all times in order to continue to receive the considerable amount offederal funding is granted bythe FAA each year. 3

1 As part ofthe Airport's 14 CFRPart 150 Compatibility Program (NCP). The 14 CFR Part 150 NCP consists ofao optimum combination of preferred noise abatement and land use management measures, and a plan for the implementation ofthe measures. The implementation plan also includes the estimated cost for each ofthe recommended measures to the airport sponsor, the FAA, airport users, and the local units of government. Implementation ofthe plan by the City is voluntary. 2 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 8. 3 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, page 3. 

### Page I 148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et aL v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 

### Complainants also claim that, "[d]espite the fact thatthe FAA approved the ATL NCP in January, 2008, Atlanta has yet to acquire any ofthe (Complainants] properties or provide sound mitigation for their properties. The [Complainants] have attempted to engage Atlanta innegotiations for the purchase oftheir properties and to provide sound insulation, butAtlanta has rebuffed every effort. Instead, Atlanta has created new obstacles and added new requirements that were not mentioned in the ATL NCP before it will consider complying with its obligations under the ATL NCP." 4


### As remedy, Complainants request that the FAA (1) 

### find the Airport in violation ofGrant Assurances 5, 16, 

### 21, and 35, (2) discontinue all federal funding until the [Airport] "corrects its violations," and (3) withdraw its approval ofthe ATL NCP until suchtime as the [Airport] issues "a schedule for completion ofthe acquisition and sound insulation phases ofthe program.''5 

### In response, the Airport denies the allegations and affirms that the Complainants "have made fundamental misstatements regarding the facts and have made equally fundamental mischaracterizations regarding the (14 CFR) Part 150 program and the roles of the [Airport] and the [FAA]."6 

### The Airport states that the 2010 "Consent Order" it entered into in Federal court inno way violates the grant assurance," 7 

### and asks that the Complaint be dismissed by the FAA. The Airport also requested thatthe Director dismiss the Complaint, deny any and all relief, and award to the City ofAtlanta its litigation expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees

..." 8


### Based on the Director's review and consideration ofthe evidence submitted, the administrative record, the relevant facts, and the pertinent laws, regulations, andpolicies, the Director concludes that the Airport is not in violation ofits Federal obligations with respect to Grant Assurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers; 

### Grant Assurance 16, Conformity to Plans andSpecifications; 

### GrantAssurance 21, Compatible Land Use; and Grant Assurance 35, Relocation of RealPropertyAcquisition. 

### The basis for the Director's conclusion is set forth herein.


### II. THE PARTIES 

### A. The Airport
ATL is a federally funded, public access, FAA-designated, large hub airport owned and operated bythe City ofAtlanta, Georgia. The Airport, consisting ofapproximately 4,700 acres and five runways, is classified as a commercial service airport with more than 931,000 annual operations. 9 

### The Airport serves more than 48 domestic and foreign airlines and ranks first as the busiest commercial airport inthe United States used by over 90 million passengers annually (2013). 10 

### The Airport has 200 gates and its terminals and concourse spaces total over 6.8 million square feet. The Airport is located in Fulton and Clayton counties, and among the local politicaljurisdictions that abut the Airport isthe City ofCollege Park,11 

### which extends to the airport's northwest quadrant (See Figure 1). 12

4 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 3. 5 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 3. 6 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, p. 1. 7 Specific discussions in FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, and Item 6. 8 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, page 35. This type ofreliefis outside the Director's authority under the 14 CFRPart 16 process. See 14 CFR 16.109 Orders Terminating Eligibility for Grants, Cease andDesist Orders, and Other Compliance Orders. 9 For additional details on ATL, see FAA Form 5010AirportMaster Recordfor ATL at http://www.gcr!.com/50IOweb/REPORTS/ AFD 11132014ATL.pdfand http://www.atlanta-airport.com/ Airport/ ATLIATL _FactSheet.aspx. 10 Among 805 U.S. airports, 12 months ending August 2014. See Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS), U.S. Department ofTransportation (US DOT),**http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn~J&Airpo!FATL.** II The City ofCollege Park, a 9.7 square mile area, is located west ofthe Airport. Based on year 2000 US Census data, approximately 20,380 persons reside within the City ofCollege Park (with approximately 92 percent ofthe population residing within the Fulton County portion ofthe City). College Park has, and is, undergoing expansion by annexing neighboring, unincorporated portions ofnorth Clayton and south Fulton counties. Within the 2007 noise contours, the vast majority ofthe incompatible land uses within the City ofCollege Part are residences (singlefamily and multi-family) located west ofHershel Road. A review offuture land use plans for the area indicates that these areas are expected to Page 2148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

Figure 1 - Geographic brakewdown ofthe local politicaljurisdictions surrounding the Airport. These include the cities ofAtlanta, College Park, East Point, Forest Park, Hapeville, Jonesboro, Lake City, Union City, Morrow, Riverdale, Fulton County, and Clayton County. Hw JAIA stands for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Source: FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 11, page C-1. 

### The Airport is considered the largest employment center in the State ofGeorgia. There are approximately 58,000 airline, ground transportation, concessionaire, security, federal government, City ofAtlanta, and airport tenant employees at the airport. The total airport payroll is $4.3 billion, resulting in a direct and indirect economic impact of$5.6 billion onthe local and regional economy. The total annual regional economic impact ofthe airport is more than $18.7 billionY
The planning and development ofthe Airport has been financed, in part, with federal funds provided bythe FAAto the City under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act ofl982, as amended, 49 USC, § 47101, etseq. Since 1982, over $870 million in federal AlP grants has been conferred to the Airport. Ofthese, over $326 million (or 37%) were for noise mitigation measures (sound insulation) and land acquisition for noise compatibility purposes. The last two AlP noise grants, issued in 2012 and 2014, totaled $23 million. 14


### In addition, significant funds generated bythe disposal ofnoise acquired land (e.g., $13 million between 1992 and 2007) have also been utilized for airport development. 15 

### The Airport also collects Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) as authorized by the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 and now codified under Section 40117 ofTitle 49 USC. A total ofapproximately $160 million a year are collected through PFCs. 16


### The Airport also includes Federal assistance in the form of surplus property conveyances. In June 1946, with the end ofWWII, the airfield closed and the US government conveyed the airfield and its facilities to the City of Atlanta as a civil airport. 17 

### As a result, the Airport has incurred obligations in the form of

remain incompatible with aircraft noise. FAR Part 150Study Noise Exposure Maps Report, March 21, 2007, p. C-1 and C-2. See FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, Exhibit 11-13. Also, see See http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/Environmental/20080908_HJAIA_NEM_Report.pdf. 12 See FAA Exhibit 1, Iteml, Exhibit 9. 13 FAA Exhibit I, Item, 25, page 71. 14 See FAA Exhibit I, Item 18, FAA- Office ofAirports, Grant History Report forATL, Report Date: 1112112014, page 13. 15 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22,Appendix BNoise LandFinancialSummary. 16 FAA Exhibit I, Item 25, page 29. 17 See FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order), issued on September 30, 2009, paragraph 1.9. 

### Page 3148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et 

### al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 

### restrictive deed covenants arising from conveyances of land executed under the powers and authority contained inthe provisions ofthe Surplus Property Act (SPA) of 1944 as amended, 49 USC 

### §4715l-l53Y
The Instrument ofTransfer is the means by which the United States Government transferred its interests in the Airport to the City ofAtlanta and, in conjunction with the AlP grants, is a controlling Federal interest in several parcels ofthe airport today.

Figure 2- Aerial photograph ofthe ATL airport with the noise contours. The 65 DNL contour is shown in blue while the DNL 70 contour is depicted in yellow. The general area where the Complainant's properties are located is identified by the green rectangle (Avery Park, Harrington Park, and Diplomat Townhomes) and oval outlines (Hartsfield Landing and Roosevelt Park). Source: ATL NCP, FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, Exhibit 28. B. 

### The Complainants
The Complainants are five (5) real estate entities who are either current or former owners ofmulti-family, residential properties, either wholly or partially within, or in close proximity to, the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours 19 

### ofATL. These properties are all located in two general areas off-airport; approximately 8,000 feet from the western end ofthe Airport's runways (See Figure 2 above). The Complainants are:


# • Virginia One Development, LLC, (Virginia One or**VOD~** 

### is the owner ofHartsfield Landing, 3001 Roosevelt Highway, College Park, Georgia, 30337. 0

18 FAA Order 5190.2R List of PublicAirportsAffectedbyAgreements With the Federal Government, April30, 1990. 19 Sound is measured by its pressure or energy in terms ofdecibels- (dB). Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is a 24-hour equivalent sound level. DNL is the standard Federal metric for determining cumulative exposure ofindividuals to noise. The DNL 65 dB contour as the cumulative noise exposure level above which residential land uses are not compatible. Noise contours are used for land use compatibility and noise exposure and mitigation purposes. See 14 CFRPart 150. 20 The Airport notes that"

...Hartsfield Landing is within the 65 DNL and is outside the city limits ofCollege Park.

..the Developer for this property is Virginia One DevelopmentLLC (VOD)." FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 10. The City engaged in extensive discussions with VOD regarding providing sound insulation. In reality, at the same time, it was seeking funding for sound insulation from the City, VOD actually planned to demolish the buildings and construct new ones, and sought federal funding and Statetax credit financing for this project. The Georgia Department ofCommunity Affairs rejected VOD'sprojectin December of2010. After its project was rejected, VOD abruptly changed course, abandoned its efforts to develop the property, and has engaged in an all-out effort to pressure the City into acquiring its property even though itis not in the 70 DNL and is thus not even eligible for acquisition. VOD's property is also not eligible for sound insulation because the property is currently abandoned, not occupied, boarded up, and has been completely gutted

...t11e property in its current state is compatible with airport noise." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 8-9, pages 22-27 under the heading The Status of Developers'Properties. Page 4148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

• Avery Park Partners, LLC, is the owner ofAvery Park, 2609 Charlestown Drive, College Park, Georgia, 30337.

• DSH Diplomat, LLC, is the owner ofDiplomat Townhomes, 2700 Camp Creek Parkway, College Park, Georgia, 30337.21

• Colony Camp Creek, LLC, is the owner ofHarrington Park, 2800 Camp Creek Parkway, College Park, Georgia, 30337.

• Crossings Townhomes, LLC, is the owner ofRoosevelt Park, 2601 Roosevelt Highway, College Park, Georgia.22 Although the Director's Determinationrefers to "Complainants" as one entity (and they are for the purpose ofthe arguments) it necessary to point out that there are significant differences between the properties owned by Complainants. This maybe relevant ifadditional detail is sought on a particular property, property owners, or more specific action concerning one ormore ofthese properties. For example, some ofthe properties are located in the 65 DNL while others in the 70 DNL contour. Not all properties are located within the limits ofthe City College Park, with Hartsfield Landings outside College Park.23 Some properties may be currently occupied as residences; some may not occupied and may be damaged. 24


### III. PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
On August 6, 2012, the Complainants filed a 

### Formal Complaint andRequestforInvestigation Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16 alleging the Airport violated 49 USC, §§40101 et seq., §§47101 et seq., and airport Grant Assurances 5, 16, 21, and 35.25
On August 27, 2012, the FAAissued the

### Notice of Docketing?6
On September 18,2012, the Airport filed its

### Answer to the Complaint andRequestfor Investigation27 and a 

### Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.28
On October 16,2012,the Complainants filed a 

### ConsolidatedReply to Respondent'sAnswer andMotion to Dismiss Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 1629
On October 22, 2012, the Respondent filed a Reply 

### to the Complainants' Reply. 30

21 On February 18, 2014, Complainants filed aNotice of Change of Ownership in which they stated that "DSH**Diploma~** LLC no longer owns Diplomat Townhomes...but that the "change in ownership ofDiplomat Townhornes does not affect the issue ofwhether the City ofAtlanta's violated its grant assurance" or "whether the new owners ofDiplomat Townhomes are entitled to noise insulation or acquisition oftheir property under the NCP." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. The Director notes that the change ofownership ofDiplomat Townhomes does not affect the issues in this case namely compliance with the grant assurances, but it does establish the fact that the Complainants in this case are the four (4) remaining entities, and thus any further reference to "Complainants" in this case do not include the Diplomat Townhomes or its new owners. affect the review ofthe alleged issues, namely compliance with the grant assurances. As example ofsuch data, see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16, pages 3-4. 22 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 4-5. 23 See Figure 1 and Figure 2. 24 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 8-9, pages 22-27 under the heading The Status of Developers'Properties. 25 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 2. 26 FAAExhibit I, Item 2. 27 FAAExhibit I, ltem3. 28 FAAExhibit I, Item 4. 29 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5. 3

### °

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6. Page 5148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

On Febrnary 11,2013, Complainants filed 

### aMotion to SupplementRecord 31
OnFebrnary 20, 2013, the Respondent filed a 

### Response to the Complainants'Motion to Supplement the Record. 32
OnApril 9, 2013, Complainants filed an inquiry with the FAA's Office ofthe ChiefCounsel raising concern overthe fact that the Complaint had not yet been adjudicated and requesting a timeline for the 

### d . . 33

ecJsJOn. On August 14,2013, Complainants filed a 

### SecondMotion to Supplement the Record 34
On August 19, 2013, the Respondent filed a 

### Motion to Supplement the Record, 35 and a 

### Notice of Withdrawal. 36
On August 27, 2013, the Respondent filed a 

### Response to Complainants'Motion to Supplement the Record DatedAugust 14, 201337
OnFebrnary 18,2014, the Complainants filed a 

### Notice of Change in Ownership38
On May 12,2014,the Respondent filed 

### aMotion to Supplement the Record 39


### IV. BACKGROUND
Inthe early 1970s, the Airport began aninformal noise study, whichresulted inthe establishment of departure tracks to mitigate noise. Subsequent changes were developed as part ofa comprehensive land use and airport noise compatibility study, which was conducted inthe late 1970s and early 1980s. 40 In 1976, initial steps were taken to alleviate the noise problem withthe initiation oftwo land acquisition and relocationprograms. In 1980, the Airport began purchasing homes in noise-impacted areas as defined by a comprehensive noise analysis establishing the DNL noise contours, and conducted as part ofa Noise Assessment and Abatement Study. FAA Airport ImprovementProgram (AlP) funds were used to fund some ofthe acquisition of approximately 455 homes. This was also anintegral part ofthe 

### Land Use Compatibility Plan for the City of Atlanta. 41 Further updates to this plan resulted inthe FAA approval ofthe Airport's first Part 150 NCP in 1984-1985.42 In 1999-2001, the Airport beganthe process ofupdatingthe existing Part 150NCP. This was part ofanEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) on which the FAA issued its Record ofDecision on September 27,2001. Thereafter in 2003, the Airport undertook the 14 CFRFARPart 150 Study discussed in this case which culminated inthe January 2008 approval by the FAA. 43

31 FAAExhibit I, Item 7. 32 FAA Exhibit I, Item 8. 33 FAA Exhibit I, Item 20. 34FAAExhibit I, Item I0. 35 FAAExhibit I, Item 12. 36 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11. This pertains to achange oflegal counsel for the Airport. 37 FAA Exhibit I, Item 13. Js FAAExhibit 1, Item 15. 39 FAAExhibit 1, Item 16. In addition, on three occasions, July 8, 2013, December 30, 2013, and November 6, 2014, the FAA'sDirector, Airport Compliance, issued notices extending the time for adetermination in order to permit afair and complete determination. See FAA Exhibit I, Item 9, Item I4, and Item 17. 40 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit II, pageA-6. 41 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit II, page A-6. 42 http://www.atlanta-airport.com/fifth/environmental/Noise.aspx. 43 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit II, page 1-2. Page 6148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09
In 2003, as part ofthatprocess, the Airport had established the Noise MitigationAdvisory Council (NMAC) to serve as the principal forum for coordinating the NCP update with College Park and other local political jurisdictions.44 Two committees oftheNMAC, the Operations Advisory Committee (OAC) and the Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC), providedtechnical input for the preparation ofthe NCP update. The objectives included providing input and guidance "into the development and implementation ofPart 150 aircraft operational, land use compatibility alternatives, and mitigationpriorities."45 In 2005, a NEM46 and draft recommendations regarding property acquisition and sound insulation were discussed, leadingto the preliminary recommendation "to identity noise sensitive sites withinthe 70 DNL 

### + contour as eligible for voluntaryproperty acquisition."47
OnAugust 3, 2006, a draft NCP update was released and indicated that approximately 878 residential structures were located in the 70 DNL contour, the vast majority ofwhich were multi-family uuits in seven apartment complexes. The draftrecommendations for the NCP update were reviewed onthat date. Comments were requested and received into the fall of2006. Atthe time, the cost ofthe voluntary property acquisition was estimated at $43 million.48 Noteworthy is that by early 2006, as noise mitigation measures, approximately 2,720 residences were acquired by the Airport at a total cost of$71.5 million. The sound insulationp.rogram was initiated in phases as well. Duringthe first phase, more than 1,700 structures received insulation. 9
In October 2006, the Airport released itsNoise Information Brochure to illustrate its ongoing programs. It described many aspects ofnoise impact and mitigation, and included a description ofthe roles and responsibilities ofall those involved, including those ofthe FAA, the airport proprietor, state and local governments, planning agencies, air carriers and local residents.50
On March 21,2007, the Airport submittedtothe FAA Volume One of the Part 150Study (Noise Study). This volume ofthe Study contained anewNEM. 51 OnAprillO, 2007, the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) confirmedthatthe NEM was in compliance.52
The Airport submitted FAA Volume Three of the Part 150Study on April30, 2007, documenting public participation inthe process,53 and on September 7, 2007, Volume Two of the Part 150Study, was submitted,

44 See Figure 2. 45 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 15. Also, "the initial step in the FAR Part !50 Study was to conduct scoping meetings. In the year 2003, a total of20 meetings were held including meetings with HJAIA's [Airport] Noise Mitigation Advisory Council (NMAC), the City ofAtlanta, Clayton County, the City ofCollege Park, DeKalb County, the City ofEast Point, the City ofForest Park, Fulton County, and the cities of Hapeville, Jonesboro, Lake City, Morrow, Riverdale, and Union City." FAAExhibit l, Item 1, Exhibit 11, page 1-4. 46 When an airport operator conducts aFAR Part 150 Study, the FAA requires that two NEMs be submitted for approval-anNEM that reflects the existing condition atthe time the study is submitted and an NEM that reflects conditions forecast to occur five years in the future. 47 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 15. 48 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 15. 49 The Airport also reports that "each eligible structure received an individual noise insulation survey to determine what sound attenuation method was needed. Residents participating in the acoustical treatment programs have been required to also participate in an avigation easement program. Avigation easements allow the Airport to operate aircraft over aparticular land area under a long-term agreement with the land owner." See http://www.atlanta-airport.com/fifth/environmental/NoiseAbaternentHistory.aspx. 50 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 23, page 6 for details. 51 14 CFR § 150.7 defines anoise exposure map as, "a scaled, geographic depiction ofan airport, its noise contours, and surrounding area developed in accordance with section A150.101 ofappendix A ofthis part." 52 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 12. 53 The Airport's Part 150 Study is being published in three volumes:

• Volume Ipresents the first four sections ofthe FAR Part 150 Study document (the NEM report) which includes the data necessary to develop the oilicial NEMs and includes the maps themselves; • Volume II presents Sections 5 through 9 ofthe FARPart 150 Study document (the NCP report) that will include the technical analyses ofnoise mitigation measures and recommendations ofthe Study; and Page 7148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. 

### v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
which included the Noise CompatibilityProgram Report (NCP). 54 

### The NCP documented potential aircraft and airport operational noise abatement and mitigation actions that ifimplemented would reduce land use incompatibility with aircraft noise in the immediate vicinity ofthe Airport.55


### On January 25, 2008, the ADO approvedthe Airport's NCP including its seven proposed action measures. 56 

### The majorportion ofthe NCP focused on the sound insulation and property acquisition programs to protect the citizens in the communities surrounding the**A~ort** 

### from the effects ofarrcraft noise.57 

### The NCP noted thatthe sound mitigation and acquisition programs5 

### would get underway after FAA approval and that the timing for actual acquisition ofproperty and sound insulation would be based on the approval oftheNEMs andNCP, as well as the availability offederal and Airport funds. 59


### As part ofits approval, the FAA noted "the Part 150 NCP is a local program, not a Federal program," and that the "FAA does not substitute itsjudgment for that ofthe airport operator with respect to which measures should be recommended for action." 60 

### In addition, the FAA outlined several ofthe limitations of the Part 150 and approval processes.61 

### The FAA addressed the concerns ofthe City ofCollege Park regarding the NCP despite the fact that the City ofCollege Park failed to submit its comments within the mandated time feriod. The FAAresponded atlengthto each ofCollege Park's concerns in an attached memorandum. 6 

### The issues discussed included College Park's beliefthat the Airport had not followed the procedures with respect to local consultation as part ofits drafting and implementation processes. In that respect, College Park stated that it "is inappropriate for the [Airport] to undertake land acquisition within the City ofCollege Park without the consent, participation, and management ofthe City ofCollege Park."63


### In its analysis, the FAA stated the "NCP gives the owner ofthe affected properties the choice ofwhether to continue residential use ofthe property" and that "this is consistent with the airport sponsor's grant obligationto take reasonable steps to assure to restrictthe use ofland next to the airportto uses that are compatible with airport operations." 64 

### The FAA added "withrespect to this specific airport, sound insulation has been considered to the extent appropriate because property owners for land that straddle the 65 DNL contour and the 70 DNL contour can opt notto be acquired, and instead, request sound insulation." FAA also stated, and that "six ofthe sevenproperties at issue straddle the contours, and the

• Volume III (the Public Participation Program) provides a discussion ofthe Study's public participation process. A summary ofthe process is provided in Section 1.4 ofVolume L

54 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 12-13 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 6-7. Also see FAAExhibit 1, Item 11-13 for the study report. 55 Non-compatible Land Use- The use ofland, which is defined in Appendix A, Table 1 of 14 CFRPart 150, which is normally incompatible with the aircraft and airport operations (such as homes, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and libraries). See Table X, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines-FARPart 150, ofthis guide to review the FAA land use compatibility table. 56 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14 & 15. Also seeFederal Register Notice, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 29. 57 FAAExhibit 1, lteml, page 8. 58 See Section 6 ofVolume II SoundInsulation andPropertyAcquisition, which identifies residences and other noise sensitive uses located within the 65 DNL contour" and recommends that Atlanta acquire residential properties within the 70 DNL contour and provide sound insulation to residences and other noise sensitive structures located between the 65 and 69 DNL contours. FAAExhibit I, Item 1, Exhibit 13, ATL NCP, pages 6-1- 6-2. For the actual language oftwo ofthe approved actions see FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, p. 11. 59 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13, page 9-3. 60 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14. 61 See Backgroundon the FAA Recordof Decision onAirport's 14 CFR Part 150NCP below and FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14. 62 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15. 63 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14 and 15. The City ofCollege Park has stated, "in addition to beingthe state's largest employer, the Airport has shaped the population and development ofCollege Park over the years as a number ofresidential properties have been purchased through noise mitigation efforts. Asthe Airport has grown and noise levels generated by aircraft have increased, some areas within the City have become unsuitable for inhabitation, causing fluctuations in the City's resident population. The most recent acquisitions through the noise mitigation program have taken a number ofmultifamily housing units outofservice. Additional property acquisitions to enable the development ofthe Rental Car Center and the ATL Skytrainhave also contributed to a reduction in residential population in recent years. Census 2010 reports that the population ofCollege Park has experienced a decrease ofapproximately 32% since 2000, dropping from 20,382 to 13,942." See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 27, p. v 64 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15. 

### Page 8)48

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et aL 

### v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09

owners would therefore be able to opt for either measure....these measures, as applied to the impacted properties, are atthe [Complainants'] discretion." 65 

### Despite the FAA analysis, which the City ofCollege Park deemed insufficient, onApril 18, 2008, College Park filed a Verified Complaint for DeclaratoryJudgment andInjunctive Relief inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia (City ofCollege Park, et 

### a!., v. The Citv ofAtlanta, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:08-cv-1464-JEC). 66 

### Per court ordered mediation, the parties settled the case on appeal, and67 

### on August 2, 2010, the United States District Court entered a "Consent Order" betweenthe Airport and the City ofCollege Park.68


### One ofthe Consent Order terms pertained to the Airport's Part 150 program and stated that the Airport "agrees to modify its current Part 150 Program to eliminate authorization to acquire any apartment complex within College Park other than Clubhouse Apartments." The Consent Order also states that the Airport "agrees to consult with College Park, withinthe confines ofFederal guidelines and other applicable law, on what properties, identified in the existing and future Part 150 documents as eligible for receipt of noise mitigation funds, are to be mitigated and the timing ofthe mitigation." 69
In

### January 2011, the FAA was notified by a representative ofVirginia One Development LLC (VOD, which is one ofthe Complainants inthis Part 16 case), that VOD had "encountered obstacles" while attempting to develop the Hartsfield Landing property. VOD had acquired the property in 2009 but "all developments have failed to date and the property owner would like to sell the property to the Airport."70


### This was followed later in 2011 by VOD taking legal action againstthe Airport in state court, resulting from the rejection by the Airport to provide funding for sound insulation for the Hartsfield Landing property, as VOD had requested. The Airport rejection was based inpart on its beliefthat here had been misrepresentations concerning the nature ofthe project, including uncertainty as to what development would take place

- demolition ofthe properties or re-development as affordable residential properties. The case also involved possible state (Georgia Department ofCommunity Affairs, DCA) and Federal funding71 

### (US Department ofHousing and Urban Development, HUD). 72


### On May 15,2012,the Complainants wrote to the Airport and stated that the Airport "has violated its Grant Assurances," and thatthe Airport "has violated its FAA-approved Part 150 Program by failing to acquire property owned by [Complainants] and/or failing to provide sound mitigation funding for the properties owned bythe [Complainants] despite having received funds from the FAA for the acquisition or sound mitigation." 73 

### Complainants also noted that they were "considering filing a Complaint andRequest.for Investigation withthe FAA pursuant" to 14 CFR Part 16.74 

### This was followed, between May 17 and July 2, 2012, by several rounds ofcorrespondence between the Complaints and the Airport concerning the disputed issues. 75 

### These attempts atresolution were unsuccessful.

65 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 12-13. 66FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I. 67 See Consent Order, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit 2, page 2. 68 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page II. 69 See Consent Order, FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 2, pages 5-6. 70 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 31. 71 Including tax credits. 72 Per the record, HUD did not approve the owner's (one ofthe Complainants) financing request due to noise concerns (65 DNL). See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 15. See also FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 22-27 under the heading The Status ofDevelopers' Properties, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8 and Exhibit A-C. The Director considers the arguments ofthe parties within the context on this Part 16, not potentially unrelated litigation in State court, which may or may not include other sources ofstate and federal funding, regulations, or policies. The detail in this background shows ahistory ofinteraction and litigation between the Airport and at least one ofthe Complainants. 73 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 16. 74 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 16. 75 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibits 17-23. 

### Page 9148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

OnAugust 6, 2012, the Complainants filed a Formal Complaint andRequest for Investigation Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16alleging the Airport had violated 49 USC, §§40101 et seq., §§47101 et seq., and airport Grant Assurances 5, 16, 21, and 35.76 

### The Complainants expanded upon their allegations by adding, "

...since the FAA approved the ATL NCP in January, 2008, the [Complainants] have requested that [the Airport] follow through with the commitments it made to the FAA inthe ATL NCP and acquire and/or provide sound mitigation to their property. 77 

### Complainants also note that "once the [Complainants'] property had been determined to be severely impacted bynoise from the airport inthe ATL NCP, the [Complainants] were damaged economically and have found it impossible to sell to other potential purchasers because it had been identified bythe ATL NCP as property that [the Airport] will acquire or sound mitigate."78


### On September 14,2012, the Airport notified FAA ofits intent to amend the NCP by adding Section 6.10 because ofthe Consent Order ofAugust 2010.79 

### A few days later, on September 18, 2012, the Airport filed itsAnswer to the Complaint80 

### as well as a Motion to DismissY In its Answer, the Airport denied the allegations and took the position that its actions concerning the Part 150 NCP were consistent with Grant Assurances 5, 16, 21, and 35. 82


### On April 9, 2013, Complainants notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the City ofAtlanta, that "pursuant to 42 USC§ 49ll(a)(l), they intended to file a civil action against the Airport for its violations ofnoise control requirements

...pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 44715." 83 

### Specifically, Complainants allege "the [Airport] violated the Noise Control Act by failing to comply with provisions of 14 CFRPart 150." Complainants added that"

...pursuant to the FAA's approval, the [Airport] is obligated under 14 CFRPart 150" to (a) offer Owners sound insulation for their properties that are located within the 65 DNL; and (b) offer acquisition oftheir properties that are located within the 70 DNL contour. 84


### The Complainants also asserted that the Airport "has already determined that Complainants' claims are valid by submitting the Part 150 NCP to the FAA for approval," and that the "FAA's Record ofDecision indicates that the City ofAtlanta now has the obli§ationpursuant to 14 CFRPart 150 offollowing through onthe promises that it made in its Part 150 NCP." 5


### OnMay 2, 2013, the FAAnotified the Airport that it had "evaluated and accepted the Noise Exposure Maps [NEMs] and supporting documentation dated December 13, 2012." The FAA determined that, (1) the 2012 noise contours and supporting documentation meet the requirements for the currentNoise Exposure Map as ofthe date ofsubmission, (2) the 2017 noise contours and supporting documentation are

76 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, page 3. 77 FAAExhibit !,Item 1, page 14. 78 FAAExhibit !,Item 1, page 14. 79 FAAExhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit 8. 80 FAAExhibit 1, Item 3. 81 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 4. 82 FAA Exhibit 1, Hem 3. 83 FAAExhibit I, Item 12, Exhibit I. 84 FAA Exhibit I, Item 12, Exhibit 1. 85 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 1. As background, Complainants offer the following: "In 2007, the City ofAtlanta submitted its threevolume Noise Compatibility Program, which allegedly was in compliance with 14 CFR Part 150 for approval by the Federal Aviation Administration. As part ofthe Part 150 NCP, the City promised that it would provide sound insulation to landowners within the 65 DNL and acquire property within the 70 DNL to those landowners who so desired. The FAA issued a Record ofDecision on January 25, 2008, approving the Part 150 NCP, so long as the City ofAtlanta complied with the obligations under the Part 150 NCP, including the sound insulation and property acquisition program." 

### Page 10 148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 accepted as the description ofthe futnre conditions, and (3) the documentation provides sufficient evidence that consultation was accomplished in accordance with section 150.21(b)." 86 

### The FAA also noted that the "acceptance oftheNoise Exposure Maps is limited to the determination that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained inAppendix A ofPart 150." The FAA also stated that "such acceptance does not constitute approval ofyour data, information, or plans," and that it does not "approve or endorse aNoise Compatibility Program, potential related federal funding ofprojects identified in such a program, or any related operating restrictions at the subject airport." 87


### On May 21,2013, the Airport formally requested the FAA amend the NCP in order to comply with the United States District Court Consent Order dated May 25,2010 and that it intended to "seekpublic comment onthe proposedNCP amendment." The Airport added that a legal advertisement had been placed inthe March 10, 2013 Atlanta Journal-Constitution (which contained the proposed NCP amendment text), and that a similar notice had beenposted on the Airport's own Web site. The Airport noted that the public commentperiod granted for this was 30 days. 88


### On July 26, 2013, the Airport filed a declaratoryjudgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia asking the Court to rule on the validity and enforceability ofthe Consent Order inrelation to the

### AircraftSafety andNoise AbatementActof 1979,49 USC 47501 

### etseq., and Part 150 ofTitle 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, 14 CPRPart 150, promulgatedthereunder." 89 

### The Airport also stated "the Court's decision should provide a definitive resolution ofthe issues regarding the Consent Order."90 In

### its filing, the Airport requested the Court to declare that: (a) The Consent Order is a valid and binding order ofthis Court; (b) The [Airport] has considerable discretion under applicable federal law and regulation, in implementing and administering the Airport-NCP, including, butnot limited to, taking into considerationthe stated wishes ofCollege Park and other municipalities that may be affected byAirport operations; (c) [Developers]91 

### have no right under the Consent Order to require the City to acquire their properties, regardless ofwhetherthe properties are otherwise eligible for acquisition under the Airport-NCP; (d) [Developers]92 

### have no right under federal lawto require the City, as an airport sponsor, to acquire their properties regardless ofwhether the properties are potentially otherwise eligible for acquisition or other reliefunder the Airport-NCP; and (e) The [Airport] has discretion in implementing the Airport-NCP and may exercise that discretion in deciding whether or not to acquire potentially eligible properties or to provide sound insulation to potentially eligible properties, so long as it has a rational basis for its action." 93

86 FAA Exhibit I, Item 19. 87 FAAExhibit I, Item 19. 88 FAA Exhibit I, Item 24. 89 FAAExhibit 1, Item 12, pages 2-3. 9

### °FAA Exhibit l, Item 12, pages 2-3. 91 Complainants in these 14 CFR Part 16 proceedings. 92 Complainants in these 14 CFR Part 16 proceedings. 93 FAA Exhibit I, Item 12, Exhibit2, page 10. Page 11148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket

### No. 16-12-09


### InAugust 14, 2013, Complainants filed A SecondMotion to SupplementRecordas part ofthe Part 16 complaint. Complainants argue that by amending the NCP as per the Consent Order, the Airport "has to recognize that it has an obligation to carry out the mitigation measures that were approved as part ofthe Part 150 NCP irrespective ofthe Consent Decree (or the [NCP] Amendment)" and that "College Parkhas to recognize thatthe initial decision as to whether the property should be acquired is the [Complainants'], not College Park's or [the Airport's]." 94 

### Complainants also stated "ifCollege Park wants to purchase the [Complainants'] properties with federal funding and keep them residential (but in compliance with the Part 150 NCP), the [Complainants] would not complain

..." and that the Airport "would retain its obligation as the airport sponsor to ensure that College Park complies with the Part 150 NCP

..." Complainants took the position that "all ofCollege Park's issues with respectto the Part 150 NCP have been specifically addressed by the FAA in its Record ofApproval." 95


### OnAprill4, 2014, the FAAnotified the Airport that "[a]fter careful consideration of[the May 21, 2013] request, the FAA has determined that immecliate formal amendment ofthe ATL NCP is not necessary." The FAA explained that "theNCP is a voluntary program onthe City's part and is not a mandate for implementation," and that "inthis case, as an apparent clarification betweenthe airport sponsor and the local land use authority [College Park], the FAA fmds it acceptable for the Airport to modify future actions currently addressed inLand Use Measure 1 ofthe NCP to reflect the legal directives outlined inthe Consent Order

...Therefore, althoughthe next ATL NCP update should reflect such changes, an immediate formal update to the NCP is not necessary." 96


### V.ISSUES Upon review ofthe allegations and the relevant airport-specific circumstances summarized above, the FAA has determined that the following issues require analysis to provide a complete review ofthe Airport's compliance with applicable Federal law and policy:


### Issue 1: Whether the Airport is inviolation ofGrant Assurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers, by notimplementing the NCP as approved bythe FAA and bynot acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.


### Issue 2: Whether the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 16, Conformity to Plans and Specifications by not implementing theNCP as approved bythe FAA and by not acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.


### Issue 3: Whether the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use for failing to take appropriate action to restrict the use ofland near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations.


### Issue 4: Whetherthe Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 35, Relocation of RealProperty Acquisition, and failed to comply with 49 CFRPart 24 bynot implementing theNCP as approved bythe FAA and by not acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.

94 FAA Exhibit I, Item 10, Taber letterto Airport, July II, 2013. 95 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11, 2013. Complainants also object to the manner in which the Airport amended its NCP '"in violation ofthe Administrative Procedures Act" since "it did not give any notice to the owners ofproperty that it knew would be affected by this amendment." Complainants add that the Airport failed "to follow the law and-regulations concerning public comments and hearings with respect to changes in the Part 150 NCP." 96 FAA Exhibit I, Item 16, page 6, and Exhibit B. Page 12148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND FAA POLICY
The Federal role in civil aviationhas been augmented by various legislative actions that authorize programs for providing Federal funds and other assistance to local communities for the development of airport facilities. In each suchprogram, the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations, eitherby contract or by restrictive covenants inproperty deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. Commitments assumed by airport sponsors inproperty conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high degree ofsafety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public fair and reasonable access to the airport.
A. The Airport Improvement Program (AlP)
Title 49 USC,§ 47101, etseq., provides for Federal airport financial assistance for the development of public-use airports under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP) established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (AAIA) as amended. Title 49 USC, § 47107, etseq., sets forth assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees as a condition ofreceiving Federal financial assistance. Upon acceptance ofan AlP grant, the assurances become a binding contractual obligation betweenthe airport sponsor and the Federal Government. The assurances made by airport sponsors in AlP grant agreements are important factors inmaintaining a viable national airport system.
B. Airport Sponsor Assurances
As a conditionprecedentto providing airport development assistance under AlP, 49 USC,§ 47107, etseq., the Secretary ofTransportation and, by extension, the FAA mustreceive certain assurances from the airport sponsor. Title 49 USC,§ 47107(a) sets forth the statutory sponsorship requirements to which an airport sponsorreceiving Federal financial assistance must agree. The FAAhas a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with these sponsor assurances. 97 FAA Order 5190.6B, FAAAirport Compliance Manual (Order), issued on September 30, 2009, provides the policies and procedures to be followed by the FAA in carrying out its legislatively mandated functions related to compliance with Federal obligations ofairport sponsors. The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for improvements to airports where the benefits ofsuch improvements will notbe fully realized due to inherentrestrictions on aeronautical activities. The FAAgrant assurances that apply to the circumstances set forth inthis Complaint include: (1) GrantAssurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers; (2) Grant Assurance 16, Conformity to Plans andSpecifications; (3) GrantAssurance 21, Compatible Land Use; and (4) Grant Assurance 35,Relocation of RealPropertyAcquisition. Additionally, because Grant Assurance 6 Consistency with LocalPlans, GrantAssurance 7 Consideration of LocalInterest, and GrantAssurance 31 Disposalof Landare referenced and are relevant, these are also discussedbelow. (1) Grant Assurance 5 PreservingRights andPowers
Grant Assurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers, (Grant Assurance 5) requires the airport owner or sponsor to retain all rights and powers necessary to ensure the continued operation ofthe airport consistent with its Federal obligations. This assurance implementstheprovisions ofthe AAIA, 49 USC,§ 47107(a), et seq. Assurance 5 requires, inpertinent part, thatthe sponsor ofa federally obligated airport

97 See, e.g., the FederalAviationAct of 1958, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC, §§ 40101, 40113, 40114, 46101, 46104, 46105, 46106, 46110; and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of1982, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC,§§ 47105(d), 47106(d), 47107(k), 47107(1), 47111(d), 47122. Page 13 148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09


### "a. It will not take orpermitany action which would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers necessary toperform any or all of the terms, conditions, andassurances in this grant agreement without the written approval of the Secretary, andwill actpromptly to acquire, extinguish or modifYany outstanding rights or claims of rightof others which would interfere with suchperformance by the sponsor. This shall be done in a manner acceptable to the Secretary.
b. It will not sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of anypartof its title or other interests in theproperty shown on ExhibitA to this application or,for a noise compatibility programproject, thatportion of theproperty upon which Federal funds have been expended,for the duration of the terms, conditions, andassurances in this grant agreement without approval by the Secretary. 

## If the transferee isfound bythe Secretary to be eligible under Title 49, UnitedStates Code, to assume the obligations of this grant agreement andto have thepower, authority, and financial resources to carry out allsuch obligations, the sponsor shall insert in the contract or document transferring or disposing of the sponsor's interest, and make binding upon the transferee all of the terms, conditions, andassurances contained in this grant agreement. d For noise compatibilityprogramprojects to be carriedoutonprivately owned property, itwill enter into an agreement with the owner of thatproperty which includesprovisions specifiedby the Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this agreement against theproperty owner whenever there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the agreement. "98
FAA Order 5190.6B elaborates on Grant Assurance 5. It states, 

### inpartthat


### "A sponsor cannot take any action that may deprive itof its rights and powers to direct andcontrol airport development andcomply with the grant assurances. GrantAssurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers, requires a sponsor notto sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in theproperty shown on Exhibit "A" without theprior written approval of the FAA. [)f 

### particular concern to the FAA is granting aproperty interest to tenants on the airport. Theseproperty interests may restrict the sponsor's ability topreserve its rights and powers to operate the airport in compliance with itsfederal obligations. Providing developers with an option to acquire afee interest infederally obligatedairportproperty is notacceptable to the FAA under GrantAssurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers" and "GrantAssurance 5

...prohibits the airportsponsor from entering into an agreement thatwoulddeprive it of any of its rights andpowers that are necessary toperform all of the conditions in the grant agreement or other federal obligations. "99 (2) Grant Assurance 6 

### Consistencv with Local Plans
"Theproject is reasonably consistentwithplans (existing at the time of submission of this application) of public agencies that are authorizedby the State in which theproject is located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport. "100 (3) Grant Assurance 7 

### Consideration o(LocalInterest
"It has given fair consideration to the interestof communities in or near where theprojectmay be located " 101

98 Grant Assurance 5, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32, and http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/medialairport-sponsor-assurances-aip.pdf. 99 FAA Order 5190.6B, pages 6-2 and 6-4. 100 Grant Assurance 6, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32. Page 14)48Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 (4) Grant Assurance 16 

### ConfOrmity to Plans andSpecifications
Grant Assurance 16, 

### Conformity to Plans andSpecifications, requires, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally-obligated airport


### "

...will execute theprojectsubjecttoplans, specifications, andschedules approvedby the Secretary. Suchplans, specifications, andschedules shall be submittedto the Secretaryprior to commencement of sitepreparation, construction, or otherperformance under this grantagreement, and, upon approval of the Secretary, shall be incorporated into this agreement. Anymodification to the approved plans, specifications, andschedules shall also be subjectto approval of the Secretary, and incorporated into the grantagreement. [GrantAssurance 16] "102 (5) Grant Assurance 21 

### Compatible Land Use
Grant Assurance 21, 

### Compatible Land Use, requires, inpertinentpart, that the sponsor ofa federallyobligated airport


### "

...will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of landadjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, of theproject is for noise compatibilityprogram implementation, it will not cause orpermitany change in land use, within itsjurisdiction, thatwill reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport; of the noise compatibilityprogram measures upon which Federal funds have been expended 103
FAA Order 5190.6B provides additional details on Grant Assurance 21. It states that


### "

...GrantAssurance 21

...relates to the obligation of the airportsponsor to take appropriate actions to zone andcontrol existing andplanned land uses to make them compatible with aircraft operations at the airport. The FAA recognizes that notall airportsponsors have direct jurisdictional control over uses of property near the airport. However,for thepurpose of evaluating airportsponsor compliance with the compatible land use assurance, the FAA does not consider a sponsor's lackof direct authority as a reason for the sponsor to decline to take any action at all to achieve land use compatibility outside the airport boundaries. In all cases, the FAA expects a sponsor to take appropriate actions to the extent reasonablypossible to minimize incompatible land. Quite often, airportsponsors have a voice in the affairs of the community where an incompatible development is locatedorproposed The sponsor shouldmake an effort to



### . h l d l

. l "104 

### d ensureproperzomng or ot er an use contra s are mp ace, an 

### "

... in cases where the airportsponsor does not have the authority to enactzoning ordinances, it shoulddemonstrate a reasonable attempt to inform surrounding municipalities on the need for land use compatibilityzoning. The sponsor can accomplish this through the dissemination of information, education, or ongoing communication with surrounding municipalities. Depending upon the sponsor's capabilities andauthority, action could include exercisingzoning authority as

101 Grant Assurance 7, FAA Exhibit 1, Item32 102 Grant Assurance 16, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32. 103 Grant Assurance 21, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32. 104 FAA Order 5190.6B, page 20-2. Remedial, or corrective, measures typically include sound insulation or land acquisition. Preventive measures typically involve land use controls that amend or update the local zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations, and building code. Page 15148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 

### granted under state law or engaging in active representation anddefense of the airport's interests before thepertinentzoning authorities. The sponsor mayalso take action with respect to implementingsound insulation, landacquisition, purchase of easements, and real estate disclosure programs or initiatives to mitigate areas to make them compatible with aircraft operations. Sponsors withoutzoning authority may also work to change zoning laws toprotect airport interests. "105 (6) Grant Assurance 31 

### Disposal o(Land
Grant Assurance 31 

### Disposal of Land, requires, inpertinentpart, that the sponsor ofa federally-obligated airport


### "

...for landpurchased under a grant for airport noise compatibilitypurposes, including land servingas a noise buffer, it will dispose of the land, when the land is no longer needed for such purposes, at fair market value, at the earliestpracticable time

...

...disposition of such land under (a) (b) 

### or (c) will be subject to the retention or reservation of any interest or right therein necessary to ensure thatsuch landwill only be usedforpurposes which are compatible with noise levels associatedwith operation of the airport. " [GrantAssurance 31

## J (7) Grant Assurance 35 

### Relocation o(RealPropertvAcquisition
Grant assurance 35, 

### Relocation of RealPropertyAcquisition, requires thatthe sponsor ofa federallyobligated airport to


### "

... be guided in acquiring realproperty, to the greatest extentpracticable under State law, by the landacquisitionpolicies in SubpartB of 49 CFR Part 24 andwillpay or reimburseproperty owners for necessary expenses as specified in Subpart

### B.

...

provide a relocation assistanceprogram offering the services described in Subpart C and fair andreasonable relocationpayments andassistance to displacedpersons as required in SubpartD andE of 49 CFR Part 24

.

.. .make available within a reasonableperiodof timeprior to displacement, comparable replacement dwellings to displacedpersons in accordance with SubpartE of 49 CFR Part 24. " 106
Grant Assurance 35 derives from the laws enacted by Congress to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result ofprojects receiving Federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably and will receive assistance 

### inmoving from the property they occupy. 107
49 CFRPart 24 covers issues such as the replacement housing paymentfor homeowner-occupants, specific rules governing replacement housing payments, and cost determinations. 108 Advisory Circular AC 150/5100-17 

### LandAcquisition andRelocationAssistance forAirportImprovement ProgramAssisted Projects provides guidance to sponsors ofairport projects developed under AlP to meetthe requirements

105 FAA Order 5190.6B, pages 20-4 and 20-5. 106 Grant Assurance 35, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32, and http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport-sponsor-assurancesaip.pdf. Also, see Uniform RelocationAssistance andRealPropertyAcquisition forFederalandFederally-AssistedPrograms. The Uniform Act and the implementing rule provide uniform and equitable treatment ofpersons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for public programs using federal funds. 107 See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_ estate/uniform_ act/. 108 See 49 CFRPart 24.401-404. Page 16148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City Of

### Atlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
ofthe Uniform RelocationAssistance andRealPropertyAcquisitionActof

### 1970 (PL 91-646, as amended) 109 

### and 49 CPRPart 24. AC 150/5100-17 states in part that:
"The UniformAct (42 USC 4601 etseq.) was enactedJanuary 2, 1971. This law applies to any Federalprojectorprogram that requires realproperty acquisition and people to be displaced from their acquiredhome, business,farm, ornonprofit organization realproperty. Thepurpose of the Uniform Act is:

a. To ensure that owners of realproperty to be acquired for Federal and federally-assisted projects are treated fairly andconsistently, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreements with such owners, to minimize litigation andrelieve congestion in the courts, and topromotepublic confidence in Federal and federally-assisted landacquisitionprograms; b. To ensure thatpersons displacedas a direct result of Federal or federally-assistedprojects are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so thatsuch displacedpersons will notsuffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of thepublic as a whole; and

c. To ensure thatAgencies implement these regulations in a manner that is efficient andcosteffective. "110


### Under the regulation, the owner ofproperty sold as a qualified "Voluntary Transaction" is not a displaced person and is not eligible for relocation assistance and payment benefits. However, "any tenant in occupancy when agreement is reached to purchase the property is displaced for the project and is eligible for all applicable relocation payments and assistance provided for under the Uniform Act."111


### C. Surplus Property Obligations Surplus property instrmnents ofdisposal are issued under the Surplus PropertyAct of 1944 

### (SPA). The Act authorizes conveyance ofproperty surplus to the needs ofthe Federal government. 112 

### Public Law 80- 289, approved July 30, 1947, amended Section 13 ofthe Surplus Property Act of 1944. These conveyances are subject to the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions prescribed therein. Surplus property instruments oftransfer are one ofthe means by which the Federal government provides airport development assistance to public airport sponsors. The conveyance ofsurplus Federal land to public agencies for airport purposes is administered by the FAA pursuantto 49 USC § 47151, 47152, and, 47153. Public Law 81-311 specifically imposes uponthe FAA the sole responsibility for determining and enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions ofall instruments oftransfer by which surplus airport property is orhas been conveyedto non-federal public agencies pursuant to the SPA. Furthermore, pursuant to 49 USC§ 47122, the FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with their federal obligations. 113

109 Sometimes referred to as the "Uniform Act." 110 See Advisory Circular AC 150/5100-17 LandAcquisition andRelocationAssistance forAirportImprovementProgramAssistedProjects, page 1. http:/ /www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory**~**circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150**~51**00-17. 111 See Advisory Circular AC 150/5100-17 LandAcquisition andRelocationAssistance forAirportImprovement ProgramAssistedProjects, page 2. ll2 FAA Order 5190.68. 113 All surplus airport property instruments ofdisposal, except those conveying only personal property, provide that the covenants assumed by the grantee regarding the use, operation and maintenance ofthe airport and the property transferred shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land. Accordingly, such covenants continue in full force and effect until released under Public Law 81-311 or other applicable Federal law. 

### Page 17148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09


### In this case, under the provisions ofthe 

### Surplus PropertyActof 1944, the Airport assumed certain obligations, reservations, and conditions. Upon acceptance ofsurplus property conveyance bythe City, the obligations in the instrument ofdisposal became a binding obligationbetween the City and the Federal government. Commitments assumed by the City in property conveyance are important factors in maintaining a high degree ofsafety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation, and maintenance as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. 114


### D. The FAA Airport Compliance Program
The FAA discharges its responsibilities for ensuring airport owners' compliance with their Federal obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The FAA's airport compliance efforts are based on the contractual obligations an airport owner accepts when receiving Federal grant funds or the transfer of Federal property for airport purposes. These obligations are incorporated in grant agreements and instruments ofconveyance in order to protect the public's interest in civil aviation and to ensure compliance with Federallaws. 115


### The FAAAirport Compliance Program is designed to ensure the availability ofa national system ofsafe and properly maintained public-use airports operated in a marmer consistent with the airport owners' Federal obligations and the public's investment in civil aviation. The Airport Compliance Program does not control or directthe operation ofairports. Rather, it monitors the administration ofthe valuable rights pledged by airport sponsors to the people ofthe United States in exchange for monetary grants and donations ofFederal property to ensure thatthe public interest is being served.
FAA Order 5190.6B sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program. 116 

### The Order establishes the policies and procedures to be followed by FAApersonnel 

### incarrying outthe FAA's responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance. It

### provides basic guidance for FAA personnel in interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments made to the United States by airport owners as a condition ofreceiving a grant ofFederal funds orthe conveyance ofFederal property for airport purposes. FAA Order 5190.6B analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard airport sponsor assurances, addresses the nature ofthose assurances, addresses the application ofthose assurances inthe operation of public-use airports, and facilitates interpretation ofthe assurances by FAA personnel. The FAA Complianceprogram is designed to achieve voluntary compliance with Federal obligations accepted by owners and/or operators ofpublic-use airports developed with FAA-administered assistance. Therefore, in addressing allegations ofnoncompliance, the FAAwill make a determination as to whether an airport sponsor is currently in compliance withthe applicable Federal obligations. Consequently, the FAAwill consider the successful action bythe airport to cure any alleged or**~otential** 

### past violation of applicable Federal obligationto be grounds for dismissal ofsuch allegations. 17

114 In this case, because (1) the Complaint did not reference the Surplus PropertyAct of1944, its properties, or obligations, and (2) the arguments presented for adjudication do not necessary mirror the surplus property obligations, the Director's decision does not incorporate a review for compliance with the SPA The overview ofthe SPA is provided here in order to establish a complete record ofthe applicable federal obligations affecting the Airport. 115 The Airport Compliance Program is administered by FAA's ACO-l00 Airport Compliance and Management Analysis. The Airport Compliance Division oversees the Airport Compliance Program. The division holds primary responsibility for interpreting, recommending, and developing policies and resolving matters that involve the Federal obligations ofairport sponsors. It also adjudicates formal complaints and FAA-initiated investigations under Title 14 Code offederal Regulations Part 16, Rules ofPractice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, and monitors airport sponsor compliance with limits on the use ofairport revenue. 116 See http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders!compliance**~**5190

_6/. 117 See e.g. Wilson Air Center v. Memphis and Shelby County Aimort Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-99-10, (8/30/01) Wilson Air Center, LLC v FAA, 372 F.3d 807 (6'" Cir. 2004). Page 18148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09


### E. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities
The FederalAviationActof 1958, as amended, 49 USC,§ 40101, et seq., assigns the FAA Administrator broad responsibilities for the regulation ofair commerce inthe interests ofsafety, security, and development ofcivil aeronautics. The Federal role in encouraging and developing civil aviation has been augmented by various legislative actions, which authorize programs for providing fimds and other assistance to local communities for the development ofairport facilities. In each suchprogram, the airport owner or sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by contract or byrestrictive covenants inproperty deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely, efficiently, andin accordance with specified conditions.
Commitments assumed by airport owners or sponsors inproperty conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high degree ofsafety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. Pursuantto 49 USC, § 47122, the FAAhas a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with their Federal grant assurances. 

### F. The Complaint Process
Pursuantto 14 CFR 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance may file a complaint withthe FAA. The complainant shall provide a concise but complete statement ofthe facts relied uponto substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall also describe how the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted by the respondents. 118 If, based onthe pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, the FAA will investigate the subject matter ofthe complaint. Inrendering its initial determination, the FAAmayrely entirely onthe complaint andthe responsive pleadings provided. Each party shall file documents itconsiders sufficientto present all relevant facts and arguments necessary for the FAAto determine whetherthe sponsor is in complianceY9
The proponent ofa motion, request, or order has the burden ofproof. A party who has asserted an affirmative defense has the burden ofproving the affirmative defense. This standard burden ofproofis consistent withthe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Federal case law. The APA provision states, "except as otherwiseprovidedby statute, theproponent ofa rule or orderhas the burden ofproof." [5 USC, § 556( d). 120 Title 14 CFR, § 16.229(b) is consistent with 14 CFR, § 16.23, which requires that the complainant must submit all documents then available to support his orher complaint. Similarly, 14 CFR, § 16.29 states that "[e]achparty shall file documents thatit considers sufficientto present all relevant facts and argumentnecessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor is in compliance." Title 14 CFR, § 16.31(b-d), inpertinent parts, provides that "the Director's determination will set forth a concise explanation ofthe factual and legal basis for the Director's determination on each claim made bythe complainant. A party adversely affected bythe Director's determination may appeal the initial determination to the Associate Administrator as provided in §16.33."
In accordance with 14 CFR, § 16.33(b) and (e), upon issuance ofa Director's determination, "a party adversely affected by the Director's determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator within 30 days afterthe date ofservice ofthe initial determination;" however, "ifno appeal is filed within

118 14 CFR, Part 16, § 16.23(b) (3, 4). 119 14 CFR, Part 16, § 16.29. 120 See also, Director, Office ofWorker's Compensation Programs, Department ofLabor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 US 267,272 (1994); Air Canada eta!. v. Department ofTransportation, 148 F3d 1142, 1155 (DC Cir, 1998). Page 19148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
the time period specified inparagraph (b) ofthis section, the Director's Determination becomes the final decision and order ofthe FAA without further action.
A Director's Determinationthatbecomes final because there is no administrative appeal is notjudicially reviewable." Title 14 CFR, § 16.247(a) defines procedural recourse forjudicial review ofthe Associate Administrator's fmal decision and order, as provided in49 USC,§ 46110 or section 519(b)(4) ofthe Airport and Airway ImprovementAct of 1982, as amended, (AAIA), 49 USC,§ 47106(d) and 47111(d).
G. Airport Noise and the 14 CFR Part 150 Program Congress, intheAviation Safety andNoiseAbatementActof 1979 (ASNA), 49 USC §47501 etseq., has provided for a programto address noise impacts from aircraft operations on areas surrounding airports. The statute requires the FAAto establish a single system for determining the exposure ofindividuals to airport noise and to establish a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program. 121 Specifically, Congress directed the FAAto: (1) establish a single system ofnoise measurementto beuniformly applied inmeasuring noise at airports andin surrounding areas for whichthere is a highlyreliable relationship betweenprojected noise and surveyed reactions ofpeople to noise; (2) establish a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to noise from airport operations; and (3) identify landuses that are normally compatible with



### . f. d" "d 1 . 122 vanous exposures o m lVI ua s to no1se. Byregulation (Part 150),123 the FAA established as the single system for determining noise exposure the calculation ofthe yearly day-night average sound level (DNL) expressed interms ofA-weighted decibels [dB( A)]. UnderFAA regulations, this calculationmustbe madeby computermodel known as the Integrated NoiseModel (INM), which incorporates information concerning the number ofaircraft operations atthe airport, the mix ofaircraft, the general flight tracks, and information about the noise characteristics ofthe aircraft operating atthe airport. The INM is used to develop a noise exposure map (NEM) ofan airport's surrounding areathat depicts noise contours, orlines ofequal noise exposure. Although actual soundlevels are frequently measured, itis impractical to develop a noise contour based on such measurements; therefore, the contours represent estimates ofnoise exposure derived from the INM. The DNL is a weighted day-night average. The noise exposure map must show contours for DNL levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB(A). For purposes ofPart 150, the FAAhas determined that 

### all land uses are compatible with sound levels that are less than DNL 65 dB( A) and has designated what land uses are compatible with soundlevels higherthanDNL 65 dB(A). 124

Part 150 also establishes a voluntary noise compatibility program. An airport operator wishing to participate must submit to the FAA a planthat incorporates a noise exposure map showing current conditions and a map showing conditions based onforecasted operations at least five years into the future. 125 The plan also will include proposed programmeasures and procedures and an analysis oftheir expected effect onreducing noise exposure and landuses designated as non-compatible. The airport operator must provide an adequate opportunity for the public, the affected states and localities, appropriate planning agencies, and the aeronautical users ofthe airportto submit comments onthe plan. The FAAreviews the plan (NCP) and either approves or disapproves the plan orportions thereof. 126

121 49

### usc 47502-47504. 122 FAAOrder 5190.6B, page 13-5. 123 See 49 USC §47504Noise Compatibility Programs. 124 See 14 CFR Part 150. Appendix A and B. 125 14 CFR 150.21(a). 126 14 CFR 150.23 and 14 CFRPart 150.35. Page 20148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 Approval ofa noise compatibility program, measures, orprocedure by the FAA enables the airport sponsor to apply for federal grants to implement that compatibility program, measure, orprocedure. 127 Consistent with ASNA, Part 150 requires airport operators preparing noise compatibility programs to analyze the following alternative measures including acquisition oflandinfee, and interests therein, including but not limited to air rights, easements, and development rights, construction ofbarriers and acoustical shielding, and sound insulation ofbuildings. 128 FAA approval under 14 Part 150 is only for the purpose ofestablishingthe noise compatibility program. 14 CFR 150.5 

### Limitations of this Partprovide details on the scope and detail ofthe process including: 

### (a) Approval of a noise compatibilityprogram under thispart is neither a commitment by the FAA tofinancially assist in the implementation of theprogram, nor a determination that all measures coveredby theprogram are eligiblefor grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. (b) 

### Approval of a noise compatibilityprogram under thispartdoes not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A requestfor Federal action or approval to implementspecific noise compatibility measures may be required, andan FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessmentof theproposedaction, pursuant to the National EnvironmentalPolicyAct (42 USC 4332 et seq) andguidelines. (c) Acceptance of a noise exposure map does not constitute an FAA determination that any specificparcel of land lies within aparticular noise contour. Responsibility for interpretation of the effects of noise contours upon subjacent land uses, including the relationship between noise contours andspecificproperties, rests with the sponsor or with other state or local government. 129
VII. ANALYSIS 

### A. Preliminary Issnes
L Standing
One ofthe preliminary issues to be addressed inthis case is whether the Complainants have standing to file a 14 CFRPart 16 Complaint In its Answer, the Airport alleges that the Complainants "lack standing to file the Complaint" 130 and only seek FAA support in furtherance oftheir businesses. 131 Specifically, Airport states that"[ d]espite the verbiage ofComplainants' Part 16 Complaint, this is what this matter is really about: The Complainants are developers (hereinafter referred to as 'Developers') who, for the most part, recently purchasedproperty near Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (the Airport). Developers are seeking the assistance ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to force the City to acquire their properties (presumably at a profit for them) under the Airport's Part 150 program." 132 One ofthe Developers (Virginia One Development, LLC) has filed a pending state court lawsuit seeking to force the City to acquire its property, even though it is not eligible for acquisitionunderthe Airport's Noise

127 See 49 USC 47504. 128 FAA Order 5190.6, pages 13-5 and 13-6. 129 14 CFR 150.5(c). Inmaking its evaluations underNEPA, the FAA applies FAA Order 1050.1EEnvironmentalImpacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) ImplementingInstructions forAirportProjects. Under these guidelines, the FAA has chosen to use the DNL noise metric for the evaluation ofnoise impacts around airports. Those procedures also establish a "threshold ofsignificance" for noise impacts. A significant noise impact would occur ifanalysis shows that the proposed action will cause noise sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise ofDNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. See Order 1050.IE, page A-61. 130 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 9-10. 131 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 2. 132 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 1-2. Page 21 148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 

### Compatibility Program (NCP) approved bythe FAA

...the remedy that Developers now seek (elimination ofF AAparticipation in funding the Airport's NCP) would effectively prevent the City from acquiring their property

...The purpose ofthe Airport's NCP is not to provide a mechanismto allow Developers to flip commercial properties. The FAA should decline the Developers' invitation to be the lever in their effort to manipulate and coerce the City in the administration ofthe NCP." 133


### In the initial Complaint, Complainants allege that they have "standingto file this Complaint pursuant to 49 USC§ 47107 and 14 CFR §16.23." 14 CFR 16,23 states, in part, that "aperson directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance

... or a person qualified under 49 CFR26.I05(c) may file a complaint under this part!' The Complainant must also and to "describe how [it] the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted to be done by the respondents!' 134


### Forthe purpose offiling this Part 16, and in describing how they were directly and substantially affected, Complainants argue two issues. First, Complainants state that they are "affected" bythe location ofthe properties within the 65-70 DNL contours, which constitute "impacted" areas within the provisions ofthe 14 CFR Part !50process. 135 

### Second, Complainants argue that the Airport's violations ofits federal obligations (by failing to adhere to the 14 CFRPart !50 process) and failure to purchase their properties results in a significant financial loss. 136


### A plain reading ofthe Complaint and pleadings does indicate that the "noise impact" and the financial implications are represented as being "directly and substantially affected." In fact, Complainants state that "once the

...[properties have] beendetermined to be severely impacted by noise from the airport in the ATL NCP, the [Complainants] were damaged economically and have found it impossible to sell to other potential purchasers because it had beenidentified bythe ATL NCP as property that Atlanta will acquire or sound mitigate." 137 

### Since most ofthe properties are located innoise-impacted areas (Figure 2), which in turn can result in the inability to develop the properties as intended, which is a logical concern, the Director finds that Complainants have provided sufficient evidence inthe record for FAAto conclude that Complainants are directly substantially affected bythe alleged actions ofthe Airport. Finally, the pleadings also support a stmctured argument concerning several grant assurances, namely, grant assurances 5, l6,2l,and35. Therefore, the Director finds thatthe Complainants have provided evidence inthe record necessary to allege that they are affected by the Airport's actions and thus finds that Complainants do have standing to file this 14 CFRPart 16 Complaint.
2. Airport's Motion to Dismiss
On September 18, 2012, the Airport filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint138 

### by asserting that the Complainants had failed to comply withthe provisions of 14 CFR § 16.21 (Informal Resolution) 139 

### because "the Complainants did not initiate and engage in good faith efforts to resolve the disputed matter withthe

133 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 1-2. 134 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, pages 4-5. 135 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 12. 136 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 1-12. 137 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 14. Moreover, the economic damages are mentioned at numerous places in the record, including as elements in litigation (Federal and State, FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, Exhibits l, 2, 3-6), and in the interactions with the GeorgiaDepartment ofCommunity Affairs (DCA) and Federal funding (US Department ofHousing and Urban Development, HUD). See FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, page 15, and FAAExhibit I, Item 3, page 22-27. 138 FAA Exhibit !,Item4. 139 14 CFR 16.21 states in pertinent part, ••...prior to filing a complaint under this part, a person directly and substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance shall initiate and engage in good faith efforts to resolve the disputed matter informally with those individuals or entities believed responsible for the noncompliance." Page 22148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 City." The Airport adds that informal resolution "requires something more than a few letters and phone calls" and that Complainants "made no effortto involve a third party neutral (as contemplated bythe regulation), nor didthey make any effortto reach a reasonable accommodation." 140
The Airport also notes that ifComplainants "had cooperated withthe City withrespectto the evaluation for sound insulation and had soughtthe approval from representatives ofthe City ofCollege Park (who are accountable to Developers as residents ofthe City ofCollege Park) to permit the City's acquisition oftheir properties, the issues that have beenraised in this proceeding may very well have beenresolved." 141 In addition, the Airport claims that the Complainants had failed to state orprove a legal claim for reliefunder Grant Assurances 5, 16, 21 and 35. 142 The Complainants disagree with these allegations, and respond that there have been good faith efforts to resolve the matter informally. The Complainants also disagree withthe claim that they have failed to state orprove a legal claim for reliefunder Grant Assurances 5, 16,21 and 35.143
A review ofthe record shows that there is evidence that the Complainants did in fact attempt to resolve the matter before filing the Part 16 Complain in a manner sufficient to meettherequirement. The record contains numerous documents showing contacts between Complainants and the Airport in the two years preceding the filing ofthe Complaint in August 2012. In addition to the Complainants' certification that steps were takento resolve the matter informally,144 the record contains written, telephone and e-mail contacts between the parties in2010, 145 litigation in20II (Fulton County Superior Court), 146 and extensive correspondence in 2012. 147 These are indicative that there were a number ofattempts to resolve the matter before filing the 14 CFRPart 16 Complaint.
As for the Airport's claim that the Complainants had failed to state orprove a legal claim for reliefunder Grant Assurance 5, 16,21 and 35, the record also shows that all ofthe arguments made bythe Complainant concerning the alleged grant assurance violations are clearly articulated and referenced. 148 Therefore, the Director finds thatthe Complainants have satisfiedthe requirements of§16.21, andhave stated a reasonable legal claim withinthe framework ofthe grant assurances and 14 CFRPart 16. Therefore, the Motionto Dismiss is denied.
3. Background on the Order ofConsent College park and the City ofAtlanta entered into a Consent Order dated August 2, 20I0 in United States District Court in a lawsuit concerning possible land acquisition by the Airport withinthe City ofCollege Park pursuant to court ordered mediation. 149 The Consent Order issued by the courtresulted from a May 24,2010 

### JointMotionfor Relief from Order and Opinion andJudgment150 151 is an "enforceable Consent Order outlining the terms ofthe settlement." 152 The Consent Order outlined the agreement ofthe parties (the Airport and the City ofCollege Park) on several issues, including the following:

14

### °FAAExhibit 1, Item 4, page 2. 141 FAA Exhibit I, Item 4, page 2. 142 FAA Exhibit!, Item 5, pages 2-9. 143 FAAExhibit I, Item 5, pages 2-9. 144 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 25. 145 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 7, Exhibit 25, and Exhibit 16. Also, see FAA Exhibit l, Item 3, and Exhibit 10. 146 FAA Exhibit!, Item 2, Exhibits 3-6. 147 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibits 16-24. 148 FAAExhibit I, Item 4, page 5. 149 Civil Action No. I:08-CV-1464. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit 2 for chronological details on the Consent Order, including details on the issues considered and agreed upon. 150 Under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 60(b)(6). 151 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, p. 20. 152 See Consent Order, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3 pages 21-22 and Exhibit 2. Page 23148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09



### • Atlanta agrees to modify its currentPart 150 Program to eliminate authorization to acquire any apartment complex within College Parkother than ClubhouseApartments, locatedat3800 HershelRoad. Forpurposes of this Consent Order, an apartment complex means any building withfour (4) or more residential units.

• Atlanta agrees to consultwith College Park, within the confines of the Federal guidelines and other applicable law, on whatproperties identified in the existing and future Part 150 documents as eligiblefor receipt of noise mitigation funds are mitigatedandthe timing of the mitigations.

• Atlanta agrees to discuss with College Park, within one hundredtwenty (120) days of the Order Date, apotentialarrangementwhereby,forfuture realproperty acquisitions for operations of the airport andfor whichAtlanta is tax exempt, the City of Atlantawillpaya Payment in Lieu of Taxes. " 153


### Several elements ofthe Consent Order terms pertain to the Airport's Part 150 program and to several ofthe issues in this case. One is the termthat states, "[the Airport] agrees to modify its current Part 150 Program to eliminate authorization to acquire any apartment complex within College Park other than Clubhouse Apartments." The other is the term that states that "[the Airport] agrees to consult with College Park, within the confines ofFederal guidelines and other applicable law, on what properties, identified in the existing and future Part 150 documents as eligible for receipt ofnoise ruitigation funds, are mitigated and the timing ofthe mitigation." 154


### A plainreading ofthe Consent Order shows that by including the text "withinthe confines ofFederal guidelines and other applicable law" and "existing and future Part 150 documents," itincorporated the applicable FAA regulatory framework, to include Part 150, as part ofthe solution to address the noise ruitigation issues.
On September 12,2012, and because ofthe Consent Order, the Airport submitted anNCP amendment to the FAA (Atlanta ADO) to reflect the Consent Order. The amendment, inserted inthe NCP as Section 6.10 Compliance with Federal Consent Order, notes: "The Consent OrderprohibitsAtlanta from certain landacquisition activities within the College Park city limits. Other than the ClubhouseApartments, locatedat3800 Herschel Road, no apartment complexes locatedwithin the city limits of the City of College Parkmay be acquired without the consent of the City of College Park. Forpurposes of thisprohibition, an apartment complex shallmean any buildingwith four or more residential units. "155


### 4. Background onthe FAA Record ofDecision onAimort's Part 150 NCP
On January 25, 2008, the FAA completed its evaluation ofthe Airport's NCP contained inthe FAR Part 150 StudyNoise Compatibility Program Report and related documents submitted under the provisions of

153 See FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 2. The Consent Order states that the "parties agree that compliance with these requirements is subject to applicable law." Applicable law includes, inter alia, the revenue use restrictions detailed in the Policy andProcedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (Revenue Use Policy), 64 Fed. Reg. 7,696 (Feb. 16, 1999). 154 See Consent Order, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit 2, pages 5-6. The Complainants reference is as follows: "[the Airport] agrees to modifY its current Part 150 Program to eliminate authorization to acquire any apartment complex within College Park other than Clubhouse Apartments, located at 3800 Hershel Road. 155 See Consent Order, FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 8. Page 24148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
49 

### USC Section 47504. 

### The FAA "approved seven ofthe seven proposed action measures in the Noise Compatibility Program in full. "156


### In its approval letter, the FAAremarked, "the 14 

### CFRPart 150

### NCP is a local program, not a Federal program and that the FAA does not substitute itsjudgment for that ofthe airport operator with respect to which measures should be recommended for action." 157 In 

### addition, the FAA stated that its approval is limited to the following:

• The NCP was developed in accordance with theprovisions and procedures of Part 150;

• Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses aroundthe airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;

• Program measures wouldnot create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airportgrantagreements, or intrude into areaspreemptedby the Federal Government; and

• Program measures relating to the use 

### o.f flightprocedures can be implementedwithin the periodcoveredby the Program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use andarrangement of the NavigableAirspace andAir Traffic Control Systems, or adversely affecting otherpowers andresponsibilities of theAdministratorprescribedby law. ,/58


### The FAA also noted (in an attached memorandum) manyregulatory and policy statements, which are not only relevant to the Complaint but also, set realistic expectations onwhat Part 150 

### does and does not. These include:

• Approval ofthe Part 150

### NCP update does not foreclose direct involvement ofCollege Park; • The NCP update includes a measure to coordinate the re-development oflandpurchased under the residential acquisition program with affected local politicaljurisdictions; • The Part 150 

### process does not require the airport sponsor to include plans for reuse ofthe properties orplans for where tenants will be relocated in its NCP butthat ifthe airport sponsor implements the NCP measure and acquires residential property, the City ofAtlanta must comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 

### which requires the airport sponsor to assist displaced individuals in obtaining comparable replacement housing; • The airport sponsor has authority to acquire multifamily residential properties using its powers as a municipal entity outside the Part 150 

### program; • The Part 150 

### process is but one method by which [the Airport] may seek to acquire property for noise mitigation purposes; and • The Part 150 

### program is not intended to harm local commuuities and undesirable negative financial and other impacts ofvoluntary acquisition ofapartment complexes in College

156 FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 14. 157 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 14. 158 FAAExhibit l, Item I, Exhibit 14. Page 25148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
Park canbe addressed byvarious means, including efforts bythe City ofAtlantato properly coordinate redevelopment ofthe acquired property with College Park. 159
Moreover, in 2011, FAAnoted that, as part ofan e-mail communication withthe Airport onthe NCP that 

### "

... theproperty is eligible for inclusion in the airport's compatibilityprogram; shouldthe airportdecide to acquire this property [emphasis added}, the offirwouldbe basedon current fair market value andwouldbe in compliance with the appropriate FAA Orders (i.e., Order5100.37);

... once the funding is awardedto the airport, it is their responsibility to manage theprogram. We encouragedthe owner to continue to workwithyou on how the acquisition of their propertywouldbest fit inyour establishedschedule. "160 Finally, as mentioned above, inApri114, 2014, the FAAnotifiedthe Airportthat "the 14 CFRPart 150 Program is a voluntaryprogram. The FAA's approval ofanNCP measure in a Record ofApproval is not a mandate for implementation. Instead, FAA's approval simply means that, ifimplemented as written and approved, the measure meets the requirements within 14 CFRPart 150

... the FAAfinds it acceptable for the airport to modify future actions currently addressed inLand Use Measure 1ofthe NCP to reflectthe legal directives outlined inthe Consent Order." 161
The above notonly establishes the limitations ofthe Part 150 process interms ofobligations, but also explains the Airport's role vis-a-vis the FAA as well as the role and authorities ofthe local politicaljurisdictions inthe matter. This clarification concerningthe 14 CFRPart 150 process and the NCP are criticalinthe discussions, whichfollow. 162


### B. Issue 1 -Whether the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 5, PreservingRights and Powers by 

### not implementing the NCP as approved by 

### the FAA and by 

### not acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.
Grant Assurance 5 

### Preserving Rights andPowers requires the Airport retain all rights and powers necessary to ensure the continued operation ofthe airport consistent with its Federal obligations. It requires in partthatthe Airport: 

### "

... will not take orpermit any action which wouldoperate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers necessary toperform any or all of the terms, conditions, andassurances in this grant agreement without the written approval of the Secretary, andwill actpromptly to acquire,

159 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15. SeeDisposition of Comments RegardingHartsfield-Jackson International AirportPart 150Noise CompatibilityProgram, Date: January 24, 2008. 160F AAExhibit l, Item I, Exhibit 31. 161 FAA Exhibit I, Item 16, page 6, and Exhibit B. 162 As part ofits discussion concerning Part 150, the Complainants argue that the Airport "has added additional criteriato the criteria listed in the ATL NCP and FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Handbook, (Sept. 30, 2009) (the "Handbook"), by requiring that all property to be acquired or sound mitigated comply with building code priorto its consideration for sound mitigation or acquisition. None ofthe conditions that Atlanta has placed on the [Complainants] were approved by the FAA nor contained in the Handbook. The [Complainants] have repeatedly requested that Atlanta supply the legal basis for the new criteria (i.e., criteria other than those specifically mentioned in the ATL NCP or the Handbook), butAtlanta has refused to supply any such legal basis." FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 16. The Airport disagrees and states that their requirements are consistent with FAA guidance. FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 23. On this ancillary issue, the Directortakes the position that ifAlP funds are used to sound insulate properties, then FAA requirements, including AlP funding guidance, would have to be used regardless ofthe discussion or exchanges in these proceedings by the parties. Page 26148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 

### extinguish or modifYany outstanding rights or claims of right of others which wouldinterfere with suchperformance by the sponsor. This shall be done in a manner acceptable to the Secretary

.

... For noise compatibilityprogramprojects to be carriedout onprivately owned property, it will enter into an agreement with the owner of thatproperty which includesprovisions specifiedby the Secretary. It will take steps to eriforce this agreementagainst theproperty owner whenever there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the agreement. " [GrantAssurance 

### 5 ] 163


### The Complainants claim that the Airport's agreement to the Consent Order in Federal Court164 

### preventing the acquisition or sound insulation ofComplainants' properties identified inthe NCP and approved bythe FAA is a violation ofGrant Assurance 5. Complainants add that the Consent Order "deprives [the Airport] ofrights and powers necessary to perform any or all ofthe terms and conditions ofthe ATL NCP," 165 

### and as a result, the Airport not only "restricts its ability to acquire property but also puts limitations onits ability to properly and effectively implement its sound mitigation program." 166 

### Complainants refer to amending the Part 150 NCP as violating the grant assurances because "the Consent Order" bars the "[Airport] from acquiring any property within the boundaries ofCollege Park." 167


### The Complainants assert that these actions, "acquisition and sound mitigation were approved by the FAA

...and therefore were considered to be reasonable actions to be taken by the Airport to control and manage...noise

..." 168 

### and by having "voluntarily limited itselffrom acquiring property that it has identified as non-compatible

...for which it has an approved NCP," the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 5. 169 

### Complainants also take the position that the Airport is "not acting in good faith" and uses the Consent Order "itvoluntarily entered into, withoutthe consent ofthe FAA or the [Complainants]." 170 

### Furthermore, Complainants take the position that "the Amendment cannot be approved bythe FAA because it is in violation of 14 CFR 

### § 150.35 which "statesthat the FAA will only approve an NCP ifthe programmeasures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce 171 

### and are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals ofreducing existing non-compatible landuses around the airport and ofpreventing the introduction ofadditional non-compatible land uses." Complainants also emphasize that "since the Amendment will impactthe salability ofthe property affected by the Amendment and it is specifically aimed at leaving multi-family residences in place that are within the 70 DNL contour, the Amendment does not meet this requirement as well." 172

163 Grant Assurance 5, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 32, and http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport-sponsor-assurances-aip.pdf. 164 United States District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia 165 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 19. 166 FAAExhibit I, Item I, pages 18-19. 167 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11,2013. Complainants' Grant Assurance 5 allegation ofviolation is that "by including the Amendment in its Part 150 NCP indicating that [the Airport] would not acquire property in accordance with Part 150, [the Airport] will have taken affirmative steps to deny itselfthe ability to obtain airport development land or noise land and/or ensure that the development ofthe property is compatible with aircraft noise." It cannot be consistent with achieving the goal ofreducing non-compatible uses to allow an amendment that limits the ability of[the Airport] to acquire property that [the Airport] has deemed to be severely impacted by aircraft noise. In addition, both the FAA and the [Airport] are aware that College Park's desire is keep the property located in the 70 DNL contour as residential properly, a use which is not compatible with the Part !50NCP." FAA Exhibit I, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July II, 2013. 168 FAA Exhibit l, Item 1, page 18. 169 FAA Exhibit l, Item 5, page 4. 17

### °FAAExhibit I, Item 5, page 2. 171 Complainants also argue that "since at least one ofthe Property Owners is an out-of-state entity, there has been a substantial burden on interstate commerce by Atlanta's failure to act on the Part 150 NCP and its hiding behind its voluntary entry into a restrictive Consent Decree that will violate Atlanta's duties under federal law." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11, 2013. This argument is meritless because the reference to interstate commerce is related to aeronautical operators, not a real estate developer. The FAA's aviation responsibilities assigned to the FAA are outlined underthe Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq. These are limited to air transportation. 172FAA Exhibit I, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11,2013. Page 27148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 Additionally, the Complainants contend that "the Consent Order does not stop [the Airport] from acquiring" properties in College Park "until it modifies the ATL NCP" and that the Airport has a "legal obligation to the FAA to comply with the ATL NCP and its grant assurances irrespective ofwhat other contracts or agreements it might have entered into with another party." 173 Finally, the Complainants supplement their claims by stating that the Airport's entering into the Consent Order "violates one ofthe central holdings ofthe Administrator in Town ofFairview v. City ofMcKinney, FAA DocketNo. 16-99- 04 and by doing so, violates Grant Assurance 5" because "[the Airport] took affirmative steps to deny itself the ability to obtain airport development land ornoise land." 174

Inresponse, the Airport maintains that Complainants have a misconception concerning the NCP, and that Complainants fail to state howissues related to the Airport's administration ofits NCP program with respect to acquisition and sound insulation ofincompatible properties are relevant to Grant Assurance 5. 175 The Airport adds thatthe properties "are not airport properties" and that ithas "takenno action which would in any way.. .impede its rights to control the airport" in a manner consistent with Grant Assurance 5. 176 The Airport disagrees with the Complainants' assertion that an approved NCP provides the Airport withno discretion in dealing with local authorities or inmanaging the NCP and states that the position argued by Complainants is "fundamentally inconsistent with federal mandates regarding NCPs." 177 The Airport recognizes that although "theNCP provides for voluntary measures to provide potential assistance through possible noise insulation

...and possible acquisition," the NCP "is the Airport sponsor's program" and is "administered atthe discretion of [the Airport]." 178
The Airport adds thatthe FAA's interest is to make "surethat properties selected for sound insulation or acquisition and to be funded in large partby federal grant money qualify for the program" and not "to dictate to the Airport which properties mustbe insulated or acquired." 179 The Airport summarizes its position by stating thatthe Part 150 process is ofa "voluntary nature

...that there is no mandatory implementation ofthe NCP, meaning that the NCP does not establish a right or entitlement on behalfof [Complainants]." 180
Inreviewing the arguments, the Director first notes that although Complainants' properties are not "airport properties," this is true only insofar as those properties are (1) not located within airport boundaries and (2) the Airport has no control over them. Grant Assurance 5 applies to all airportproperties, within or outside airport boundaries. For example, airport properties acquired well outside ofthe airport, for either noise mitigation or another reuse airport function (e.g., off-site parking), are still airport properties subjectto the grant assurances. 181
However, the Director does not agree with the Complainants that the applicability ofGrant Assurance 5 extends to any and all actions onthe part ofthe Airport concerning a property it does not ownbut might be interested infor noise mitigation purposes (inthe NCP), as it isthe case here. Accordingly, Complainants' assertion as to this Grant Assurance 5 claim has no merit.

173 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, page 4. 174 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 6. 175 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, page 26. 176 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 27. The Airport notes that "the [FAA Order] identifies of 'particular concern' the granting ofproperty interests to tenants on [emphasis added] the airport." FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 28. 177 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 27. 178 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 3 and 4. 179 The Airport also states that "property owners have no right to reliefbecause, as one example, possible reliefis dependent upon the availability offunds, which is not a certainty. In other instances, for example, sound insulation would be futile because the buildings have multiple code violations or are simply not capable ofbeing effectively insulated. There are amyriad ofpossible considerations that come into play with particular properties. The FAA should not interject itselfinto these determinations." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 4. 180FAA Exhibit I, Item 16, page 2. 181 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 5-6. Page 28148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, 

### et al. v. 

### The City OfAtlanta- FAA 

### Docket No. 

### 16-12-09

The Director also observes that certain aspects ofComplainants' understanding ofthe "rights and powers" requirement in Grant Assurance 5, and the scope ofthe Part 150 process, have been misunderstood. First, Complainants take the position that "College Park has to recognize that the initial decision as to whether the property should be acquired is the [Complainants'], not College Park's or [the Airport's.]" However, for the purpose ofa 14 CFRPart 150 NCP and related projects, Complainants' discretion in decisionmaking is one ofeither accepting an offer ofpurchase or sound insulation, or not. It

### is notto dictate that a particular offer bythe airport sponsor bemade. Second, Complainants argue that ifthe Airport would simply acquire the properties as Complainants request, the Airport "would retain its obligation as the airport sponsor to ensure that College Park complies with the Part 150 NCP." 182 

### Yet, adherence to, modifications and implementation ofthe Part 150 NCP or its measures, is an airport sponsor action, not one transferable to a local publicjurisdiction, and certainly not to Complainants. The City ofCollege Park does not need to "comply" with the Airport's NCP since the Airport in essence "owns" the Part 150 process, not the City ofCollege Park.
In regulation and policy, the Part 150 (and NCP) is a voluntary program proposed and administered bythe airport sponsor. Land acquisition for noise compatibility is eligible for federal participation ifit is an element ofa Noise Compatibility Program prepared bythe airport owner and approved by the FAA in accordance with Part 150. Consequently, the FAA's role is to make sure that federal funds spent under the program are consistent withthe NCP, as approved, and responsive, onthe part ofthe Airport, to local conditions and concerns ofsurrounding municipalities. It

### is not the FAA's role, nor is it a requirement, to mandate that specific properties be acquired or others sound insulated. That is outside the scope ofthe Part 150 process. There is a significant distinction between a property owner deciding whether to accept sound insulation or acquisition, ifthe Airport makes such an offer, and stating, as Complainants do, that Grant Assurance 5 (or any other grant assurance, e.g., 16, 21, or 35) requires that a particular property must be acquired or sound insulated. Moreover, the FAA's Airport District Office was clear in its Aprill4, 2014letter about the role ofthe agency -FAA's approval ofan NCP is not a mandate for implementation, and the local land use authority, not the FAA, makes determinations regarding specific land uses. 183


### Onthe issue ofthe Consent Order, the Director disagrees with Complainants' position thatthe "Consent Order is ofno importance to the FAA" 184 It

### would be unreasonable and inappropriate for the FAAto agree that, under Grant Assurance 5, and for voluntary noise compatibility program projects, the Airport must enter into an agreement with the owner ofthat property regardless ofthe implications concerning local jurisdictions, zoning laws, variances, and other responsibilities.
The Airport's interactions with the City ofCollege Park resulted in court mandated mediation and an Order ofConsent. The fact that the Airport had discussions with College Park and even entered into litigation with the City on a local land use matter illustrates that the Airport is not only exercising its rights and powers withinthe framework provided by Part 150 (e.g., cooperation with local politicaljurisdictions), but also is acting in a manner consistent with other federal obligations. This includes Grants Assurances 6 and 7, which incorporate and require coordinationwith local politicaljurisdictions. 185 

### As noted above, Grant Assurance 5 mentions entering "into an agreement with the owner ofthatproperty which includes provisions specified" bythe FAA. However, this requirement, as part ofthe acquisition process, is designed to protect the Airport's rights and powers and federal obligations interests. Compliance with

182 FAA Exhibit I, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11. 2013. 183 FAA Exhibit 1, ltem 16, ExhibitB. 184 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, page 7. 185 See Figure 2. Page 29148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
Grant Assurance 5 is not a mandate for the Airport to enter into an agreement with the Complainants regardless ofother related matters and consequences. Similarly, this perception ofa "mandate" cannotbe used asjustification to consider the Consent Order unrelated to the issue because it was "voluntary" orbecause it was "entered into without the consent ofthe FAA orthe [Complainants]," 186 as Complainants argue. As pointed outby Complainants, the FAAis not a partyto the recently filed declaratoryjudgment action, 187 which is a legally binding action stemming from litigation inFederal court concerning a local land use matter. 188 Itis also consistent with and within the rights and powers ofan airport sponsor, giventhat it does not involve any AlP-fundedproperty purchases, and specifically requires that compliance with its requirements is subject to applicable law. 189
As discussed above, the inherent limitations ofthe Part 150 process do notpermit the interpretationthat strict non-adherence to a voluntaryNCP is defacto inconsistent withthe grant assurances, including Grant Assurance 5. This is especially true since FAA's approval ofanNCP measure is not a mandate for implementation, and the Part 150 process itselfprovides for updates, amendments, and changes, including those designed to accommodate local concerns. 190

Inthe end, the Airport is interacting with the local politicaljurisdictions as part ofits noise-based acquisitionprocess in a marmer consistent withFAA obligations and guidance. In fact, the record shows existing and expected coordinationprocesses between the Airport and the City ofCollege Park. College Park's Comprehensive Plan 191 2011-2013 reflects that "continued coordination withthe [Airport] regarding future growth at the airport to address neighborhood preservation and impacts ofcontinued growth." 192 College Parkhas also stated that its policy is to "participate inthe Airport AreaWorking Group, which [began] meeting in fall 2011 in order to improve coordination ofand development, planning, aesthetic and transportation improvements, and economic development around the Airport." 193

In addition, as the record reflects, the FAA has taken the public position that ifCollege Park demonstrates that it is capable ofcarrying outthe projects [noise programs] withinitsjurisdiction, then it may be eligible to receive grants to implementthose projects" as provided by 49 USC 47504( c)(1), (c)(3). 194 Ifa nonsponsor talces part innoise programs under federal statutes, it certainly does not supportthe argument that

186 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 2. 187 FAAExhibit 1, Item 13, page 2. 188 The Airport explains that Complainants "in essence argue thatthe FAA and the City should ignore the Consent Orderentered bythe United States District Courtfor the Northern District ofGeorgia. This suggestion not only fails as a matter ofcommon sense, but also because the Orderhas the force oflaw." FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 6. 189 As the Airport notes ''the Consent Order has the force oflaw and cannot be ignored bythe [Airport] orthe FAA. [Complainants] would essentiallyhave the FAAte11 a federaljudgethat an Order she entered has no force and effect. [Complainants] have yet to explain why this is legallypermissible, much less proper." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 7. 190 In its Answer, the Airport states that ''thePart 150 Program requires airport sponsors to consult with and work with local authorities. In addition, "as is reflected in exhibits submitted by Developers, the City ofCollege Parkhas long had concerns about the Airport acquiring property within its city limits. College Parkhas particularly expressed concerns, for example, that the acquisition ofmulti-family residences negatively affects its tax base. The courts have previously recognized that legitimate concerns, including those raised by the City ofCollege Park,justified completely excluding multi-family residences from the Airport's priorNCP

...."[a]ftermediation and negotiation, resulting in the entry ofa Consent Orderthat, with one exception, prevents the City from acquiring multi-family residences within the city limits ofCollege Park." See FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 4-6. 191 Comprehensive Plan- Similarto a Master Plan, the comprehensive plan is a governmental entity's official statement ofits plans and policies for long-term development. The plan includes maps, graphics and written proposals, which indicate the general location for streets, parks, schools, public buildings, airports and other physical development ofthejurisdiction. 192 FAAExhibit 1, Item 27, page 7. 193 College Park Comprehensive Plan 2011-2031, page 51. See http://wVI!W.collegeparkga.com/DocumentCenter!HomeNiew/746. 194 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15. Ifthe FAA determines that College Park is capable to receive grants to carry outprojects in this approved NCP update, either from the FAA directly or from the City ofAtlanta," theFAAwould need to address, "among otherthings, whether the issuance ofgrants directly to College Parkwouldbereasonably consistent withtheprogram and achieving the goals ofairport noise compatibility planning under 49 USC §47501 et seq., as implemented by 14 CFRPart 150 and the national priority system for funding." FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 15. Page 30 148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et aL v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09


### the Airport is obligated under 14 

### CFR Part 150 

### or its graut assurances, to acquire property or sound insulate, as Complainants assert. It

### is unreasonable to assert that an airport making changes to its NCP or delaying its implementationbecause oflocallanduse concerns is outside ofthis discretion aud thus would result in a violation ofa grant assurance (including Graut Assurance 5).
AlP property acquisition does not include the Complainant's perception ofwhat is "mandatory" within the scope ofthe grant assurances. Sponsor acquisition is "mandatory" when it is to accommodate AlP construction (Airport projects) aud only within the scope ofthat AlP project. This meaus that it ifthe airport sponsor chooses not acquire the property or is unable to do so, the FAA will not fund the future AlP acquisitionproject. It

### does not mean that the airport sponsor is in violation ofits current grant obligations. As the Airport states, "grant assurances are meant to make sure that funds spent for federally supported programs are spent for appropriate purposes, not to mandate the spending offunds." 195 

### Complainants have argued that "the Amendment cannotbe approved by the FAA because it is in violation of 14 

### CFR 

### § 150.35" 

### audit is inconsistent "with achieving the goals ofreducing existing non-compatible laud uses around the airport and ofpreventing the introduction ofadditional non-compatible laud uses." 196 

### This argument lacks merit because the Airport has been effective inreducing non-compatible laud uses around the airport and preventing the introduction ofadditional non-compatible land uses. The Airport's actions inreducing incompatible land uses around the airport are discussed below in detail under Graut Assurance 21. 197 

### Finally, Complainants' reference to Town ofFairview v. City ofMcKinney, FAA Docket No. 16-99-04 

### is not persuasive. In that decision, the FAA does state that "FAA encourages airport proprietors to implement airport noise compatibility programs under Part 150. 

### Part 150

### Noise Studies are voluntary. However, once federally-funded, Part 150 

### studies must be completed and meet the requirements ofPart 150."198


### The reference to "once federally-funded, Part 150 

### studies must be completed aud meet the requirements of Part 150"

### has to be interpreted within the scope aud limitations ofthe Part 150 

### process which still permits an airport sponsor to make changes to its noise mitigation measures with or without FAA concurrence, and FAA review ofwhether AlP funds disbursed for a noise mitigation measure have beenproperly utilized. In the current case, the Airport (1) 

### completed its Part 150 

### study andNCP, (2) FAA approved it, (3) 

### Airport changed its NCP, (4) FAA concurred withthe changes, aud (5) there is no evidence that AlP funds for noise mitigation measures were misused. 199 

### There is no evidence that the Airport gave away its rights and powers concerning an AlP-funded aud acquired property for noise mitigation purposes, which would be a violation ofGrant Assurance 5. 200

195 FAA Exhibit I, Item 16, page 2. 19'FAAExhibit I, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July II, 2013. 197 The same rationale applies to Complainants' assertions that "since the Amendment will impact the salability ofthe property affected bythe Amendment and it is specifically aimed at leaving mu1ti-family residences inplace that are within the 70 DNL contour, the Amendment does not meet this requirement as well." FAAExhibit 1, Item 10, Taber letter to Airport, July 11,2013. 198 Town ofFairview v. Citv ofMcKinney, FAADocketNo. 16-99-04, page 10. 199 The pleadings (multiple exhibits and the Background section ofthis document) in this case provide for this sequence ofactions. The Director notes that in Town ofFairview v. City ofMcKinney, which includedthe review of·'whether McKinney's cancellation ofthe noise abatement procedure is a violation ofits current Federal obligations," the FAA determined that there was no violation of"GrantAssurance 6 and 7." Town ofFairview v. City ofMcKinney. FAADocket No. 16-99-04, page 14, 20. FAA concurred with the airport sponsor's decision to stop implementing a noise measure, which illustrates that an airport sponsor can change its noise mitigation measures providing the FAAwith an opportunity to review those changes. Also see FAAExhibit 1, Item 16, page 6, and Exhibit B. 200 The Complainants cite JetAway Aviation. Inc

.. v. Montrose Countv. FAA Docket No. 16-08-01, Director's Determination (July 2, 2009) as supporting the argument thatthe airport sponsor's preserving its rights and powers extends to control property outside the Airport'sboundaries because that decision "heldthat GrantAssurance 5 prohibits the airport sponsor from giving away rights and powers the sponsor needs to control and manage the noise created by aircraft in the surrounding area. FAAExhibit 1, ltem 5, page 5. The Director rejects the Complainants' reference to JetAway Aviation v. Montrose Countv: the complaint didnot involve a noise complianceprogram or any issues involving the acquisition orsound insulation of incompatibleproperties. Grant Assurance 5 prohibits the airport sponsor from giving away Page 31 148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 

### Against this background, the Director is not persuaded bythe Complainants' allegations thatthe Airport, by entering into the Consent Order, deprived itselfofthe ability to take action that is appropriate underthe FAA-approvedNCP. 201 

### The actions the Airport has taken concerning Complainants' properties are not inconsistent with FAA guidance. Accordingly, the Director finds that the Airport has not violated ofGrant Assurance 5PreservingRights andPowers. 

### C. Issue 2- Whether the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 16, 

### Conformity to Plans and Specifications by 

### not implementing the NCP as approved by 

### the FAA and by 

### not acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.


### Grant Assurance 16, Conformity to Plans andSpecifications, 

### requires, inpertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally-obligated airport:
"

...execute theprojectsubject toplans, specifications, andschedules approvedby the Secretary. Suchplans, specifications, andschedules shall be submittedto the Secretaryprior to commencement of sitepreparation, construction, orotherperformance under this grantagreement, and, upon approval of the Secretary, shall be incorporated into this agreement. Anymodification to the approved plans, specifications, andschedules shall also be subject to approval of the Secretary, and incorporated into the grantagreement." 

### [Grant Assurance 16].


### The Complainants assert that the Airport "is bound by its grant assurances to comply with the ATL NCP as it was approved by the FAA." More specifically, the Complainants contend that Grant Assurance 16 

### allows for modifications to an NCP with FAA approval,202 

### but that given that (1) 

### the Airport "is refusing to comply with the provisions ofthe ATL NCP," and (2) "has added additional criteria to the eligibility requirements that have not been approved by the FAA," the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 16."203 

### Complainants interpret the textual reference to "other performance" in Grant Assurance 16 

### as including an airport's conducting a Part 150 NCP. In support oftheir allegation, Complainants cite FAA guidance, such as AC 150/5070AirportMaster Plans, 

### AC 150/5020 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, 

### and ACRP Re{/.ort Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction StrategiesforAirporti 4 

### as supporting documentation?05


### The Airport disagrees with the Complainants' assertions and states that Grant Assurance 16 

### is only applicable to constructionprojects and is not applicable to the Airport's NCP. The Airport further denies the Complainants' assertionthat the [Airport] has amended the eligibility requirements ofthe NCP and maintains thatthe Airport "has enforced its NCP Report along with the requirements set forth inthe AirportImprovement Program Handbook. " 206


### As with other grant assurances, Grant Assurance 16 

### reflects requirements interms ofa specific grant project. That is why the reference to "this grant agreement" is made in the language ofthe Grant
rights and powers it needs to control and operate the airport. Itobligates the sponsor to retain financial and legal control ofairnortnroperty to ensure the airnort's continued operation as an aimort [emphasis added]." See DD at 21. 201 Nor is there any evidence thatthe Respondent abrogated its right and powers by agreeing to the terms ofthe Consent Order in amanner contrary to Grant Assurance 5. A Respondent cannot be found in violation ofGrant Assurance 5 merely by the assertions ofComplainants. Goodrich v. Endicott, FAADocket No. 16-08-03 (April3, 2009), page 30. 202 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 19-20. 203 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 20. 204 See http://www.trb.org/Main!Blurbs/l665l9.aspx. 205 FAAExhibit l, Item 5, pages 8, and FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, Exhibits BandC. 206 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 27-28. This Handbook (FAA Order 5100.28) provides guidance and sets forth policies and procedures for the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). Page 32148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
Assurance itself.207 Moreover, thereference to "otherperformance" in Grant Assurance 16 does not expand applicability to another undetermined class or type ofproject, as the Complainants argue, but to actions related to that site orconstruction project/grant.208
Relevant FAAtechnical guidance on this matter clarifies the project/grant issue. For example, FAA Order 5100.38, which is the main guidance document on AlP projects, identifies Grant Assurance 16 and its applicability to "applyuntil the grant is closed." 209 When addressing "Specifications," FAA Order 51 00.38 AirportImprovement Program HandbooK10 refers to "FAA Standards (or Specifications)" as guided by FAA Order 5300.1 Modifications to AgencyAirportDesign, Construction, andEquipmentStandards. "211 The same Orderreferences "Plans and Specifications" in terms of(l) "engineer's reports," 

### (2) "obtain prior FAA approval for modifications to standards," and 

### (3) "notify

...ofany limitations

....withinthe project [emphasis added]."212
From a different perspective, since the Airport has not fully implemented its Part 150 NCP, may choose to modify it, orhas yetto finalize many ofthe steps in a possible property acquisition, including coordination with several local politicaljurisdictions,213 a finding ofnon-compliance with Grant Assurance 16 is not justified, as the Complainants argue. 214 As stated previously, the process contemplates changes, and updates, and these steps would require coordination with localjurisdictions and could ultimately involve litigation.
As stated by Complainants, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070AirportMaster Plans does include discussions concerning noise mitigation projects. 

### Itmakes references to (l) "existing airport noise or environmental programs should be discussed in the environmental overview," (2) "planners should use appendices for the majority ofthe technical documentation, such as noise analisis

...," (3) AC 150/5020-1, and (4) "frequent coordinationwith local, regional, and state organizations

..." 15 Infact, the AC 150/5070 provides a myriad ofadditional guidance on interacting with local and statejurisdictions?16 AC 150/5070

207 This is consistent with theDirector's position taken relative to project specific grant assurances in priorPart 16 cases. For example, in Town ofFairview. Texas. v. Citv ofMcKinney. Texas. FAA Docket 16-04-17, the FAA noted in describing Grant Assurance 6 and 7 as '"

...from this language [GrantAssurance language], it is clearthatthe obligation is project specific and is an obligation for grant approval (see subtitle ofstatute, Project Grant Application Approval). The original implementation ofthe RNAP [noise procedure] was not associated with any federally-funded project. Since Respondent's submissions under Part 150 are not ripe for discussion, this Office finds that Grant Assurance 6 is not applicable to this case." The FAA supplemented thisby stating that "even after ourreview ofthe Part 150Noise Compatibility Plan is complete, Grant Assurance 6 may still be inapplicable. Grant Assurance 6 pertains to project specific requirements atthe time ofgrant approval. Complainants also would need to specify how Part 150 was violated and its relationship to a specitlc grant assurance. Furthermore, if an airport sponsor were not able to meet such project specific requirements, it is unlikely that FAAwould accept the Part 150Noise CompatibilityPlan and approve the grant for the airport." DD, pages 16-17 and footnote 22. 208 FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, pages 7-8. References bythe Complainantsto AC 150/5070-6BAirportMaster Plans is inaccurate because the document mentions noise within the context ofa reference to another document, AC 150/5020-1 Noise Control and CompatibilityPlanning for Airports. In addition, the Complainants' reference to the ACRP Report Handbook for ConsideringPractical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction StrategiesforAirports does not conflict with thefact that FAA defines the applicability ofGrant Assurance 16 to specific grants/projects. 209 FAA Order 5100.38, pages 2-10. 210 See http://www.faa.gov/regulations _policies/orders_ notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1025767. 2" FAA Order 5100.38, pages 3-19. 212 FAA Order 5100.38, pages 3-24. 213 For example, Section 103 oftheASNAActrequires that noise exposure maps be prepared in consultation with public agencies andplanning agencies in areas surrounding the airport. See AC 150/5020-1 Noise ControlAndCompatibility Planning forAirports, p. 25. Advisory Circular AC 150/5020-1 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning forAirports provides general guidance for noise control and compatibilityplanning, specific guidance for preparation ofairport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs by airport sponsors for submission underFARPart 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. 214 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, pages 8-9. 215 FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, Exhibit 3, and examples atpages 31, 32, 78, and 116. 216 The AC also notes thatTheFAA Community Involvement Manual, document FAA-EE-90-03, should be consulted to help develop a community involvement program. This manual can be accessed in the 'Communications Tools' section oftheAirportNoise Compatibility Planning Toolkit. There are a number ofState DOTsthat have similar guidance. Additional discussion on community involvement canbe found under the 'Community Consultation' section ofthe FAAdocumentBest Practices Guide-initiative 6 to May 2001 Report to Congress on Streamlining the EnvironmentalProcess, which is available athttp://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental!." Page 33148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
does not mandate or otherwise require, under penalty ofgrant assurance violations, that a planremain unchanged or that the Airport's ability to modify the plan is restricted. It certainly does not refer to a violation ofGrant Assurance 16 for modifying an Airport Master Plan or delaying implementing an element ofthe plan due to local or state considerations. Notwithstanding the above, this is not a situation where an actual noise mitigation grant has been issued, a project initiated, orthe failure ofa sponsor to meetthe approved plans and specifications for the project, such as not insulating homes as funded or not demolishing all ofthe acquired properties.217 The fact is that there is no actual grant orproject in effect at this time (and at the time ofthe Complaint) concerning noise mitigation ofthe affected properties. 218 Accordingly, the Director finds that the Airport is notinviolation ofGrant Assurance 16.


### D. Issue 3

- Whetherthe Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 21, CompatibleLand Use for failing to take appropriate action to restrict the use ofland near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations.
Grant Assurance 21, 

### Compatible Land Use, requires, inpertinentpart, that the sponsor ofa federallyobligated airport:


### "

...take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of landadjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing andtakeoff of aircraft. In addition, 

### if theproject is for noise compatibilityprogram implementation, it will not cause or permitany change in land use, within itsjurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise compatibilityprogram measures upon which Federal funds have been expended. " [Grant Assurance 21].
The Complainants allege a violation ofGrant Assurance 21 on the grounds that the Airport (1) " failed to take all reasonable actionto restrict the use ofland around [ ATL] to uses that are compatible with airport operations;" (2) has failed to "take appropriate actions to the extent reasonably possible to minimize incompatible land;" and 

### (3) has not attempted "to prevent or mitigate the effect ofhazards to the best ofits abilities

..." 219 In addition, Complainants argue that the "NCP commits [the Airport] to take action to prevent the residences from being severely impacted by aircraft noise and remove them as incompatible land uses...." 220 Complainants also contend that the Airport "has a legal obligation to the FAAto comply with the Part 150 NCP and also a legal obligation to comply with its grant assurances, irrespective ofwhat other contracts or agreements it mighthave entered into with anotherparty," and thatby amending "its Part 150 NCP to incorporate the Consent Order and bar [the Airport] from acquiring any property within the boundaries of College Park" the Airport "is in clear violation ofGrant Assurance 21

..." 221 The Grant Assurance 21 allegation is that by "entering into the Consent Order and proposing the Amendment, [the Airport] effectivelyhas barred itselffrom talcing 'appropriate action' to restrict incompatible land use under Grant

217 Atthis time, the FAA has no evidence that the Airport has set aside or earmarked AlP funds for sound insulation orproperty acquisitions projects involving the Complainants' projects. 218 References made to a cost of$42-43 million in 2006 are an estimate, not a grant amount See FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14, January 24, 2008 memorandum, page 2. Another reference in the record states that "the total cost for the acquisition phase ofthe NCP would $42 mi11ion, which included administrative costs, payouts for displaced owners and tenants, as well as the cost for acquisition." FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 10, andFAAExhibit 1, ltem3, page 18. 219 FAAExhibit !,Item I, page 21. 22

### °FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 10-11. 221 FAAExhibit 1, Item 10, TaberlettertoAirport, July 11,2013. Page 34148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09


### Assurance 21, giving College Parkthe power to veto any acquisition ofincompatible land. Thus, the Amendment is in violation ofthe grant assurance." 222


### The Complainants maintain that when an airport sponsor "is not able to directly control the property that is impacted by operations at the airport," Part 150 "directs the sponsor to acquire the property or provide sound mitigation."223 

### References are made to FAA Order 5190.6B by stating that "the [FAA Order] elaborates on the airport sponsor's duties with respect to Grant Assurance 21 explaining that it relates to the obligation ofthe airport sponsor to take appropriate actions to zone and control existing and planned land uses to make them compatible with aircraft operations at the airport. The lack of jurisdictional control over the incompatible land use does not excuse the sponsor from declining to take any action at all to achieve land use compatibility outside the airport boundaries."224 

### Indeed, a Part 150 NCP is meant to address that particular situation: when the airport sponsor is not able to directly control the property that is impacted by operations at the airport, Part 150 directs the sponsor to acquire the property or provide sound mitigation." 225 

### Complainants also states thatthe FAA "stated that acquiring property and sound mitigating property is consistent with the airport sponsor's grant obligation to take reasonable steps to assure to restrict the use ofland next to the airport to uses that are compatible with airport operations" and thus "the converse should also be true: failing to acquire the**propert~** 

### and failing to sound mitigate the property is inconsistent with the sponsor's grant obligations." 26


### The Director notes that throughout the pleadings, bothparties discuss extensively the compatible land uses in the 65 and 70 DNL, referencing both land use acquisitions and sound insulation. Since the properties in question are either in the 65 or 70 DNL, or straddling both contours and the Part 150/ AlP processes would dictate what type ofmitigation a property would be eligible for, the Director does not take a position on whether a particular mitigation measure is adequate. Moreover, at issue is the action(s) ofthe Airport, either land acquisition or sound insulation, not whether one is more adequate thanthe other or ifa particular location is impacted. Therefore, issues such as assertions regarding consideration ofambient sound levels, property in 65 DNL v. 70 DNL, identification ofproperties potentially eligible, potential eligibility for acquisition, and potential eligibility for sound insulation227 

### need not be resolved by the Director in this Part 16 proceeding. The same rationale applies to issue such as "INM modeling," "changes to noise monitoring data," 

### "Human Health Effects of AircraftNoise memorandum,"228 

### and references to the adequacy or accuracy ofthe 2007 Noise Exposure Map, which are discussed by the parties.229 

### The Director's position is supported by the fact that under 49 USC §47507 

### Non-Admissibility of Noise Exposure Map and Related Information as Evidence,
"no part ofa noise exposure map or related information described in section 47503 ofthis title that is submitted to or prepared by, the Secretary ofTransportation and no part ofa list ofland uses the Secretary identifies as normally compatible with various exposures ofindividuals to

222 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Taber letter to Airpor1; July II, 2013. 223 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, page 21. 224 FAA Order 5190.6B, page 20-2. 225 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 20-21. 226 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, page 2 I. 227 An example is discussed in FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 14-17. 228 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Taber Law Group Memorandum, June 4, 2013. 229 See FAA Exhibit I, Item 7 and Item 8. Page 

### 35148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
noise may be admitted into evidence or used for any other**~urpose** in a civil action asking for relieffor noise resulting from the operation ofan airport." 2 0
The Complainants further argue that "[the Airport], through its agreement to the Consent Order, seems to ensure that at leastproperty within the borders ofCollege Park will remain residential and therefore incompatible with operations at ATL." 231 Complainants recognize that because "minimizing incompatible land use is the goal ofthe FAA's Part 150 program, and the ATL NCP in particular," the Airport "took the appropriate action ofdrafting the ATL NCP" but failed to follow through and undertake the obligations and commitments it made under the ATL NCP to the [Complainants]."232 As characterized by Complainants, the Airport "has consistently refused to take reasonable steps to ensure thatthe use ofthe land that it has identified as being impacted will be used for uses that are compatible 

### . h . . 233 w1t auport operatiOns. Complainants dismiss the Airport's defense that the Consent Order is representative ofits "reasonable attempt to work with the community ofCollege Park," butrather, "the Consent Order capitulates to College Park's demands to stop acquisition efforts for properties located withinthe 70 DNL."234 Complainants maintain that "[r]egardless ofwhether [the Airport] believes that it can ignore its promises to the [Comfslainants] to sound mitigate and/or acquire the properties," it is in violation of Grant Assurance 21. 2 5 Complainants cite Keathly v. City ofMcKinney, Texas andthe Collin County Regional Airport, FAA DocketNo. 16-03-14, in support ofits argument, but recognize that the circumstances were "slightly different." Complainants assert that withregard to compatible land use issues, FAAtypically addresses two questions in order to determine ifa sponsor has violated its obligations (1) are the facility's operations compatible with local airport operations and (2) ifnot, could the sponsor have prevented the facility from operating near the airport. 236 Using this premise, Complainants argue that Atlanta in the ATL NCP determined that all ofthe properties are not compatible with local airport operations due to their presence inthe 70 DNL and/or 65 DNL contours, and committed to take actionto prevent the residences from being severely impacted by aircraft noise and remove the incompatible land uses. Complainants conclude that Atlanta, however, has not taken the action it said it would to prevent the impact, and this is not consistent with Atlanta's obligationto take reasonable steps to assure to restrict the use ofland next to the airport to uses that are compatible with

. . 237 mrport operatiOns.
In response, the Airport contends that it is fully compliant with Grant Assurance 21. The Airport expands this by stating that while the assurance "contemplates that the sponsor would use zoning laws to restrict land use adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity ofthe airport," the Airport "does not have jurisdiction over the lands at issue in this action," andthat "zoning and land use is governed by the City ofCollege Park or Fulton County." The Airport affirms that "the City has not caused or permitted any change in land use that would reduce the compatibility ofthe adjacent land use." 238 The Airport explains that following the 2008 approval ofthe NCP by the FAA, it has "been actively engaged in implementing its program and, where appropriate, acquiring and mitigating properties." The Airport also states that it has had "extensive interaction with municipalities and members ofthe public

230 49 USC §47507 Non-Admissibility of Noise Exposure Map andRelated Information as Evidence, 231 FAAExhibit I, Item I, pages 21-22. 232 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 22. 233 FAAExhibit 1, Item l,page21. 234 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, pages I0-11. 235 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 21-23. 236 FAAExhibit 1, Item l, page 21-22. 237 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 21-22. 238 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, page 29. Page 36148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et 

### al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket

### No. 16-12-09 

### concerning the noise compatibility program."239 

### The Airport references the NCP in recounting that "over the past 20 years, the [Airport] has acquired or sound insulated noise sensitive properties located within the 65 DNL

...," that "the vast majority ofthe noise sensitive properties closest to the Airport were acquired, and that "[t]o date, the [Airport] has spent approximately $192 million purchasing impacted properties," and "another $78 million and $42 million will be spent

..."240


### In further support, the Airport also cites FAA guidance [FAA Order 5190.6B §20.2(d)], which states that "in cases where the airport sponsor does not have the authority to enact zoning ordinances, it should demonstrate a reasonable attempt to inform surrounding municipalities on the need for land use compatibility zoning. The sponsor can accomplish this through dissemination ofinformation, education, or ongoing communication with surrounding municipalities."241 

### The Airport then notes that it "has gone far beyond any reasonable attempt to inform and educate the surrounding municipalities, including the City ofCollege Park," including extensive interaction with municipalities and members ofthe public concerning the noise compatibility program" and "numerous meetings with the City of College Park in furtherance ofits noise compatibility plan."242 

### Finally, the Airport asserts that Complainants' reference to Keathly v. City ofMcKinney, Texas, FAA Docket No. 16-03-14, is misplaced because it "involved [a City] permitting a recycling facility in close proximity to the airport," and because the Director "concluded that [the City] had not violated Grant Assurance 21." In contrast, the Airport argues that it has not permitted and "has no control over the construction ofresidences," and that it "has engaged in no activity that caused an incompatible use of property."243


### As discussed in detail above under Issue 1 (Grant Assurance 5) and Issues 2 (Grant Assurance 16), the Consent Order is legally enforceable. Moreover, as discussed previously, the Consent Order does not prevent the Airport from complying with Grant Assurance 21 because (1) the voluntary Part 150 NCP remains in effect and is ongoing, and (2) the Airport has coordinated with localjurisdictions. Both are elements ofachieving compatible land use. The fact that the Airport has not fully implemented its Part 150 NCP, chooses to make changes to it, or because it has yet to finalize many ofthe steps in a possible property acquisition is consistent with the premise in Grant Assurance 21. This grant assurance calls for appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use ofland adjacentto or in the immediate vicinity ofthe airport to compatible uses through noise compatibility program measures. The NCP gives the owner ofthe affected properties the choice of whether to continue residential use ofthe property. This is consistent with the airport sponsor's grant obligation to take appropriate action to the extent reasonable to restrict the use ofland next to the airport to uses that are compatible with airport operations.
A review ofthe record indicates that since 1982, over $870 million in federal AIP grants has been accepted by the Airport, $326 million (or 37%) ofwhich were for noise mitigation measures (sound insulation) and noise land acquisition.244 

### In addition, the Airport spends about $8 million annually for home insulation.245

239 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 30-31. 240 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 29-30. 241 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 29-31. 242 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 30. 243 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 301. 244 The Airport purchases certain residential parcels ofland that are considered to be within the area designated as "noise impacted" surrounding the Airport The costs ofacquisition and relocation ofresidents in this area are eligible under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Noise Abatement Grant Program for reimbursement. The FAA funds approximately 75% to 80% ofthese costs with the remainder financed by the Airport. The FAA retains a continuing interest in the properties equal to its original funding percentage and restricts the use ofsuch properties to purposes, which are compatible with the noise levels associated with the operation oftheAirport. All costs associated with acquiring these Page 37148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
The last two noise grants, issued in 2012 and 2014, totaled $23 million.246 

### Several hnndred homes and parcels all around the airport have been acquired over the past 30 years to mitigate and reduce noise impacts.247 

### The NCP, as approved by the FAA on January 24, 2008, identified a total cost ofabout $130 million, with $95 million in AlP Noise Grants and $35 million in Passenger Facility Charges (PFC).248
The Airport has also used a significant amount ofits own funds for noise mitigation. For example, in 2005, as part ofGrant No. 3-13-008-67, the Airport allocated over $6 million from its own appropriations to the project. 249 It 

### is also relevant to note that the Airport launched a new

### Noise Insulation Program (NIP) in 2010.250 

### The NIP is a voluntary program approved by the FAA and was designed to make properties near the Airport more compatible with aircraft noise. More than 4,000 apartment units and 40 single-family homes are eligible for noise insulation improvements through the program. Also in 2010, the Airport issued its first annual environmental report, chronicling the Airport's environmental programs, including noise mitigation.251 

### As mentioned above in the case of ATL, the DNL 65 dB contour has been reduced since the 1980s despite a tripling ofairport operations (See Figure 3 below). 252



# - "' 2! 50



# ·e o CT Ill 

# - Area within 65 and 70 Day-Night Levels (DNLs)



### 1982 

## 1997
Year 

### 2007-2010 11170 DNL 65DNL

Figure 3

- Graphic depicting the reduction in the noise impacted areas from 1982 through 2010. Source: Annual Environmental Report, 2010 Progress Update, FAA Exhibit I, Item 26.

parcels ofland are recorded under the caption "Landpurchased for noise abatement" on the Airport's balance sheets. FAA Exhibit 1, Item 25, page 41. 245 Land Use Management andAirport Controls Trends andIndicators of Incompatible Land Use, December 2007, page 6. See http:1 /web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/landmgt-proj6-2008-0I.pdf 246 See FAA- Office ofAirports, Grant History Report.forATL, Report Date: 11/21/2014, page 13. 247 SeeHartsfield-JacksonAtlanta InternationalAirportNoise LandReuse Plan Original Plan Filed- October, 2009 FAA Exhibit 1, ltem 22 and http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/Airport/EnvironmentaL 248 PassengerFacility Charge (PFC) Program- The PFC Program, first authorized bytheAviationSafety andCapacity ExpansionActof 1990 and now codified under Section 40117 ofTitle 49 USC, provides a source ofadditional capital to improve, expand and repairthe nation's airport infrastructure. It can be used for noise projects. For example, in April2010, the FAA approved PFCApplicationNumber: 10-11-C-00- ATL Impose and Use a PFC. One ofthe projects approved was "Noise Mitigation Program." See http://www.regulations.gov/#**!documentDetaii;D~F**AA-20I0-0470-000I. 249 See Ordinance 05-0-1050 at http://citycouncil.atlantaga.gov/2005/IMAGES/Adopted/0705/050!050.pdf. 250 Byproviding an array ofextensive acoustical treatments to an eligible property, interior noise levels can be greatly reduced, improving the quality oflife for all occupants, the NIP will provide these treatments atno costto the property owner...To be potentially eligible, properties must meet two criteria: (I) they must be located within the currently FAA-approved noise contours; and (2) they have not been treated in a previous NIP. The currently approved contours are those contained in the 2007 Noise Exposure Map (NEM). ThisNEM was developed using the most recent operations data to include aircraft flight paths, aircraft types, number ofaircraft operations, times ofoperations, andrunway assignments. Properties contained within the NEM boundaries are located within the cities ofAtlanta, College Park, EastPoint, ForestPark, Hapeville, and Fulton and Clayton counties, and they encompass a wide variety ofproperty types including single family, multi-family, schools, daycare, community centers, healthcare/retirement, churches, and fire stations." http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Airport/nip/.
2s1 FAA Exhibit LItem 25, page 10.
2s2 See GA0-12-890 Airport Noise Grants- FAA Needs to Better Ensure Project Eligibility and Improve Strategic Goal and Performance Measures. page 11. See http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648148.pdf. 

### Page 38)48Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 

### Thus, the record shows thatthe Airport has been consistently engaged in noise mitigation for several decades, expending large amounts offunds in both property acquisition and sound insulation. The Airport has also had in place a very comprehensive noise land reuse plan, which includes restricted covenants for any disposal to prevent the re-introduction ofnoise sensitive developments. 253


### This is consistent with Grant Assurance 31 Disposal of Land, 254 

### which discussed the disposition of noise land with restrictions to "ensure that such land will only be used for purposes which are compatible with noise levels associated with operation ofthe airport." Public participation has also been extensive as illustrated by the twenty Part 150 scoping meetings the Airport participated on between February 6 and March 11,2003,255 

### which support the Airport's current Part 150 process. These actions are convincing indications that the Airport has taken action to mitigate noise, rather than not. It 

### does not show that the Airport failed "to take all reasonable action to restrict the use ofland around the airport to uses that are compatible with airport operations," as the Complainants assert.256 

### The record contains no information indicating that the Airport has taken action, which has resulted in an incompatible land use. The record does show that Airport consulted with the FAA (ADO) regarding the NCP as necessary, and has done so for a long time. In fact, and contrary to the Complainants allegation, as part ofthe Consent Order, the Airport agreed to several actions, which are, by definition, consistent with establishing compatible land use. One such term inthe Consent Order discussing noise mitigation after acquisition stated, "ifpurchased by College Park, the

...site shall be subject to the restrictive covenants [emphasis added]."257 

### There is no evidence inthe record to suggest that the ADO has had concerns over whether the Airport has violated any Federal obligation due to changes to its NCP or variations in the way it implements it. Accordingly, the Director finds the facts presented in the record do not support a finding that the Airport is in violation ofGrant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use.


### E. Issue 4 - Whether the Airport is iu violation ofGrantAssurance 35, 

### Relocation of Real PropertyAcquisition and failed to comply with 49 CFRPart24 by not implementing the NCP as approved by the FAA and by not acquiring or sound insulating Complainants' properties.
Grant Assurance 3 5Relocation of RealPropertyAcquisition 

### requires that the sponsor ofa federallyobligated airport:

253 A reuse plan illustrates thatthe noise mitigation process in place is complete in that it also ensures that non-compatible land uses are notreintroduced. See FAA Exhibit I, Item 22. Forexample, the reuse plan notes that "'as part offuture noise land disposal transactions, the following statement regarding retained property rights shall be made part ofthe transaction: "RES1RICTIVE COVENANTS- This transfer and any subsequent transfer ofany interest in the property transferred herein shall be expressly made subject and subordinate to and contain the following covenants to assure future uses will be compatible with the operation ofthe Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: Grantee agrees on behalfofitself, its heirs, successors, transferees, and assigns that the land herein conveyed shall never be used generally for any purpose inconsistent with noise land uses as may bepromulgated bythe Federal Aviation Administration and the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Compatibility Program from time to time, and specifically for any residential purpose orother noisesensitive land use (including, but not limited to, single-family homes, multi-family homes, apartment complexes, senior living complexes, assisted living complexes, daycare centers orhospitals). Nor shall the land herein conveyed be usedfor any airport parking unless such use is approved, in writing, by the City ofAtlanta, or its successors and assigns, through its Aviation General Manager. Itis further expressly agreed that this restrictive covenant is intended to run with the land, in perpetuity, and is made in favor of, and for the benefit of, the City ofAtlanta in the operation, and the airlines in the use of, the Airport, and the United States ofAmerica, by and through its agency the Federal Aviation Administration." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22, page 4. 254 See FAA Program Guidance Letter 08-02 Management of AcquiredNoise Land: Inventory- Reuse- Disposal, February 1, 2008. See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22, Appendix A, FAAProgram Guidance Letter, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, Exhibit 1. Note: This specific guidance may have been superseded since referenced in the pleadings. See Appendix R. Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects ofF AA Order 5100.38D. 255 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 12, page 10-3. Also, see page 10-9 for a more extensive listing ofthe many meetings with the local political jurisdictions and other interested parties. 256 FAAExhibit I, Item I, page 22-23. 257 Consent Order, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit 2, page 5. Page 39148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09



### "

...will be guided in acquiring realproperty, to the greatest extentpracticable under State law, by landacquisitionpolicies in SubpartB of 49 CFR Part 24 andwillpay or reimburseproperty owners for necessary expenses as specified in the Subpart. In addition, the airport sponsor is to provide a relocation assistanceprogram offering the services described in Subpart C 

### and fair andreasonable relocationpayments andassistance to displacedpersons as required in Subpart D andE of 49 CFR Part 24." [Grant Assurance 35]
Onthis issue, Complainants argue that the AiTort's failure to acquire certain Complainants' properties results in a violation ofGrant Assurance 

### 35?5 Complainants allege that the Airport has violated Grant Assurance 35 and 49 CPRPart 24 because (1) "the ATL NCP specifically states that [the Airport] intends to acquire certain properties held bythe [Complainants] and provide sound mitigation for others" and 

### (2) that it "intends to use Federal assistance for the acquisition ofreal property."259 Complainants add thatthe Airport has violated Grant Assurance 3 5 and 49 CPRPart24 because "once property to be acquired has been identified," it failed to make "everyreasonable effortto acquire the real property expeditiously by negotiation" and to treatthe Complainants (as displaced persons) "fairly, consistently, and equitably so that [the Complainants] will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result ofthe project." 260 Complainants assert that "one method ofestablishing a violation ofGrantAssurance 35" is to demonstrate thatthe [Airport] 

### has the intention ofdisplacingthem as a result ofacquiring real property with federal funds." 261 Complainants supporttheir allegations by stating that the Airport "delayed"progress, changed its criteriafor property acquisition, failed "to give the [Complainants] any reasonable explanationwhytheir property has notbeen acquired or provided sound mitigation orbeenprovided," and failed to provide "a schedule as to when [Complainants] could expect to have [the Airport] acquire" or "sound mitigate their properties."262 Complainants also take the positionthatthe Order ofConsent is unrelated because it is "voluntary" 263 and was "entered into withoutthe consent ofthe FAA orthe [Complainants]"264 and that the City ofCollege Park is a "third party" unrelatedto the issue between the Airport and Complainants.Z65

258 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, pages 24- 25. These arguments are reiterated in FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, pages 12-13. Specifically, Complainant's state that "Atlantahas acted in bad faith in carrying out its acquisition and sound mitigation program by (1) failing to act expeditiously, since it has nowbeen over4 years from the time the FAA approved the ATL NCP, yet Atlantahas only acquired onepropetty, which according to the Memo, Atlanta was already intheprocess ofnegotiating to acquire at the time it submitted the ATL NCP for approvaL" Thus, Atlanta's failure to acquire additional properties is in violation of49 C.F.R. §§ 24.1 and 24.102(a) as well as Grant Assurance 35. Moreover, Atlanta has failed to treat the [Complainants] "fairly, consistently, and equitably sothat [the [Complainants] will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of project." 49 CFR § 24.l(b). It has consistently acted in bad faith in ignoring the advice ofthe FAA and has added additional criteriato its acquisition and sound mitigation program thathave not been made known to the [Complainants] (or the FAA)." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 24-25. 259 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, p. 23. In supporting its arguments, the Complainants refer to Pacific Coast Flyers, Inc., et al., v. Countv ofSan Diego.**Califomi~** FAADocket 16-04-08. In that decision, the Director noted that" GrantAssurance 35, Relocation and Real Property Acquisition, requires an airport sponsor to be guided in acquiring real property by the land acquisition policies in 49 CFRPart 24. The purpose ofthese requirements is to implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), which guide acquisition ofreal property to be acquired for Federal and federally assisted projects. Since the PAC/Burrows development at CRQ does not involve the acquisition ofreal property for Federal and federally-assisted projects, Grant Assurance 35 and 49 CFRPart 24 do not apply." Pacific CoastFlyers v. Countv of San Diego. California, p. 46. 26

### °FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, p. 24-25. 261 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, page 24. Complainants further argue that "there can be no doubt that has failed to comply with its duties under Grant Assurance 35 in this regard" because the "NCP specifically states that [the Airport] intends to acquire certain properties held by the [Complainants] andprovide sound mitigation for others. Thus, there can be no doubt that Atlantahas the intention ofdisplacing the [Complainants]. Moreover, the ATLNCP documents that Atlanta intends to use federal assistance for the acquisition ofreal property." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 24. 262 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, pages 24-25. 263 FAAExhibit I, Item 5, page 2. 264 FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, page 2. 265 FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, page 12. Page 40148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
In its Answer, the Airport notes thatthree ofthe [Complainants'] properties are only eligible for sound insulation, and not acquisition, and that as a result, Grant Assurance 35 does not apply to those properties. Concerning the remaining properties, the Airporttakes the positionthatbecause ofthe Order ofConsent is in federal court litigation, those properties are not "being acquired"266 at this time. The Airport further rejects the Complainants' claim that they are "di::J?laced persons" because there has beenno property acquisition and hence there cannotbe displacedpersons? 7
The Airport cites Benton v. Savanah Aimort Com'n 241 GaApp. 536 S.E.2d 383 (1999) inwhichthe court found thatthefsrovisions ofthe [Uniform Relocation Act] do not create a private right ofaction in landowners."2 8 The Airport rejects the Complainants' claims that ithas not made a "reasonable effort" to acquire the properties, that ithas nottreated the Complainants "fairly, consistently and equitably" and that is has not given "anyreasonable explanationwhytheirproperty has not been acquired."269
The Airport affirms it "is actively implementing its NCP and will continue to do so" and that it "has repeatedly advisedthe [Complainants]

...that their property cannot be acquired withoutthe consent of College Park due to the Consent Order." 270 Onthe allegations regarding "a schedule for implementation," the Airport notes thatthe 14 CFR 150 process does not require "adetailed property-by-property schedule of when voluntary measures will be considered." The Airport also states that "timing for implementation is necessarily dependent on a number ofissues, including FAA approval [as well as] the availability offunds," working with "local politicaljurisdictions," where the issue is to allowthemto have "flexibilityto settheir ownpriorities" with respect to the Part 150 Program."271 Finally, the Airport states that as an alternative to property acquisition, it could consider and evaluate sound insulation as mitigation for noise impacts.272
A plainreading ofGrant Assurance 35 clearly indicates that ifapplicable, the Airport has to adhere to four requirements in 49 CFRPart 24: 

### (I) follow land acquisition policies therein, (2) pay orreimburse property owners for necessary expenses, (3) provide a relocation assistance program, and (4) provide assistance to displacedpersons. Because the litigation betweenthe Airport andthe City ofCollege Park, andthe subsequent court Order of Consent, are legal and within that legal framework, they do establish a valid baseline orreference from whichto ascertain compliance.
The assertion, by the Complainants, thatthe Airport "hides behind the Order ofConsent" 273 or thatthe Consent Order is unrelated because it is "voluntary" and was "entered into without the consent ofthe FAA or the [Complainants]"274 is without merit. The Order ofConsentis a legal enforceable document addressing a local land use and developmentmatter betweenthe airport sponsor andthe local politicaljurisdiction. The fact thatthe City ofAtlantaentered into the Order ofConsent is not inconsistentwith FAA'spolicies, 14 CFRPart 150, orthe grant assurances (see GrantAssurances 6 and 7) which incorporate and require coordination with local politicaljurisdictions, as discussed above inprevious Issues.275

266 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, page 31. 267 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 31. 268 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 31-32. 269 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 32 and see also pages 7-8. The Airport explains part ofits actions that have involved explaining its actions in terms ofcommunicating \\lith Complainants. 27

### °FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 32. 271 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 13-14. The Airport quotes from the NCP and states that it "has secured some federal and local matching monies to fund portions ofthe property acquisition and sound insulation programs. Once the approval ofthe NEM portion ofthe study is received from the FAA [Airport] staffwill work with the property owners, local politicaljurisdictions, and school districts to develop an implementation plan for the acquisition, reuse, or insulation ofthese properties. Every effort will be made by the [the Airport] to accelerate the program to the greatest extent possible." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 14. 272 FAAExhibit I, Item 3, pages 32-33. 273 FAAExhibit I, Item 5, page 12. 274 FAA Exhibit I, Item 5, page 2. 275 See FAAExhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 14, and FAAExhibit I, Item 5, pages 12-13. Page 41\48Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA DocketNo. 16-12-09 Contrary to the Complainants' assertion, the City ofCollege Park is not a mere "third party" unrelated to the issue betweenthe Airport and Complainants.276 The City ofCollege Park is the local politicaljurisdiction with zoning and other authorities, and thus, is, as viewed bythe FAA, a necessary partyto any resolution. In fact, the 2008 NCP Record ofApproval specifically noted (1) that the "[Airport] and politicaljurisdictions will coordinate regarding redevelopment oflands purchasedunderthe residential acquisitionprogram," (2) that "the Airport "has no control over land use and zoning decisions beyondthe Airport's boundaries," and (3) that "landuse planning and zoning is the responsibility oflocal governrnents."277
To argue, as the Complainants do, that the Airport has an obligationto negotiate and acquire the properties irrespectively oflocaljurisdictions or thatthe Airport is requiredto do so under Grant Assurance 35 (and 49 CFRPart 24) lacks foundation. 278 The allegation is also notpersuasive because it is early into the potential property acquisition process bythe Airport. As Complainants note, and although it is true thatthere has been planning for the possible property acquisition with Federal funds, the process (at the time ofthe Complaint) lacks specificity. Therefore, there is no basis for FAAto make a finding that the Airport has been acting contrary to its grant assurance requirements.
Several basic and critical steps or actions inthe process have yet to be determined as perthe applicable guidance. For example, both the FAA'sProgram Sponsor Certification- RealPropertyAcquisition (49 CFR Part 24 & Uniform Act of 1970) andAcquisition- Relocation Records Checklist 279 and Project Clearance Under 49 CFR Part24Requirementi80 include numerous items, issues, and steps which cannot be addressed without the additional information whichwouldbe available hadthe process beenmore advanced?81
To assert that there has been a violation ofGrant Assurance 35 whenthe actual properties for possible acquisition have not yet been identified, notto mentionthe level ofcompensation, completion ofappraisals, offers, relocations, replacement housing, payments orpost-acquisition uses have not yet been agreed upon, completed ordecided, is premature, and not reasonable. This is especially true when the 'justification" for the violation hinges on (I) on-going coordination between the Airport andthe localjurisdiction onthe possible re-development ofanypurchased properties, and (2) taking into account FAAguidance on49 CFR Part 24, and (3) consideration ofstate and local laws, zoning, ordinances, housing codes, growth policies. All ofthese are reasonable issues to consider.
The allegations thatthe Airport has failed to make "everyreasonable effortto acquire the real property expeditiouslybynegotiation" andto treatthe Complainants (as displaced persons) "fairly, consistently, and equitably"282 is unsupported bythe facts. The record clearly shows that the Airport has been and continues to be engaged withthe local politicaljurisdictions in determining the appropriate course ofaction (e.g., acquisition v. sound insulation) and under which conditions.
The litigation, the Consent Order entered by the US District Conrt for the Northern District ofGeorgia,283 and local coordination, all pointtowards significant efforts, ratherthan a lack ofeffort, to resolve the matter.

276 FAAExhibit 1, Item 5, page 12. 277 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 14 (See Land Use Measure No.2 and No.6). 278 FAAExhibit I, Item 5, page 12. 279 See Advisory Circular AC 150/5100-17, Figure 8-2. 280 Advisory Circular AC 150/5100-17, page 5. 281 For additional infonnation on this type ofprocess, see FAA Order 5100.37 LandAcquisition andRelocationAssistance for AirportProjects, August 1, 2005. This Order provides guidelines and identifies responsibilities for FAA acceptance and monitoring ofairport sponsor compliance with provisions ofthe Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq), as amended, on airport projects receiving Federal fmancial assistance. This Order incorporates all applicable requirements as provided in the Uniform Act implementing regulation 49 CPR Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Prograrus (70 FR590, January 4, 2005 and as may be amended). 282 FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, page 23-25. 283 See FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 2. Page 42148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
In fact, as mentioned above inmultiple instances, the record reflects consistency with the applicable FAA requirements and policies. Similarly, the allegation thatthere has been a "4 years" delay and thatthe Airport changed its criteria for property acquisition resulting in a violation is not convincing. Such an amount of elapsed time (4 years) is not unreasonable in such situations, especially when litigation is involved. The fact ofthe matter is that such an extensive program will have varying schedules for implementation and would be subjectto changing prioritizations, local considerations, coordination withproperty owners, FAA funding, and many other variables.
As discussed above, changes to theNCP as well as to property acquisitionprocedures, especially because of a court's Order ofConsent, and while maintaining consistency withFAArequirements concerning local plans and interests, are not unreasonable actions. To argue, as the Complainants do, that once the Airport has submitted the NCP (and approved bythe FAA), it has no authority or discretion to modify it to take into account certainlegitimate local authorities' interests regarding its implementation and management,284 is not persuasive, as discussed above under previous issues.
The FAA-approved Part 150 NCP does not committhe Airport orthe FAAto an actual purchase butdoes provide for coordination with local politicaljurisdictions, and seeks "consistency with local land use authority ofcommunities."285 In fact, as the Airport point out, the argument could be made that the Airport's actions are supported by its responsibilities under Grant Assurance 6 

### Consistency with Local Plans which requires that "the project [be] reasonably consistent with plans ofpublic agencies that are authorized by the State in whichthe project is located to plan for the development ofthe area surrounding the airport" and Grant Assurance 7 

### Consideration of LocalInterest, which states that the Airports "has given fair consideration to the interest ofcommunities in or near where the project may be located."286 Ifthe Airport were to ignore local plans and interests, disregard the Consent Order, and moveunilaterally forward with the property acquisitions as sought bythe Complainants, such action couldjeopardize its compliance with grant assurances. Finally, the Directorrejects the Complainants' arguments thatthe Airport's actions violate the Uniform Relocation Act (implemented by 49 CFR Part 24). As the Airport correctly states, Grant Assurance 35 applies to situations in which land is being acquired withfederal funds, but since the Airport has not acquired the properties in question, Grant Assurance 35 cannotbe applicable to this matter at this time.287 The argument that "intention" to acquire property entitles a property-owner to benefits under 49 CPRPart 24, is unsupported.
The Director cannot make a finding ofviolation ofGrant Assurance 35 onthe speculative grounds that property may ormay not be acquired, especially with the detailed background in this case. There is no justification for the FAAto interpretthe Airport actions as "inactions." In any event, the Airporthas acknowledged its obligations under this grant assurance in its pleadings. Based onthe above, the Director finds that the Airport's actions concerning the non-acquisition ofcertain properties, as argued by the Complainants, do notrise to the level ofa violation ofGrant Assurance 35.

284 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 3-4. 285 FAAExhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14, January 24, 2008 memorandum, page 4. 286 SeeFAAExhibit I, Item 6, pages 6-7. Specifically, the Airport states that "the Consent Order in no way violates Grant Assurance 5. The City has discretion in the management ofits NCP and is entitled to determine what properties it may acquire or remediate with sound mitigation construction. Indeed, GrantAssurances 6 and 7provide additional grounds for the entry of the Consent Order. Grant Assurance 6 requires that the 'nroject [emphasis added] is reasonably consistent with plans (existing at the time ofsubmission ofthis application) ofpublic agencies that are authorized by the State in which the project is located to plan for the development ofthe area surroundingthe airport."' Grant Assurance 7 requires that the Sponsor has given fair consideration to the interest ofcommunities in or near where the project may be located.' (Emphasis added.) In resolving the City ofCollege Park litigation with the entry ofthe Consent Order, the City took into accountthe interest of the local community in implementing the NCP." 287 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pagelO. Page 43148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09
VIII. Findings and Conclusions


### The Director finds that the Airport has considerable discretion under applicable federal law and regulations, in implementing and administering its FAA-approved voluntary Part 150 NCP, including, but not limited to, taking into consideration local concerns from politicaljurisdictions that may be affected by Airport operations. This discretion may include deciding whether to acquire potentially eligible properties or to provide sound insulation to potentially eligible properties. This coordination with local political jurisdictions inmatters ofland use is consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, grant assurances, and FAApolicies. Thus, upon consideration ofthe submissions ofthe parties, the entire record herein, the applicable law and policy and for the reasons stated above, the Director, Airport Compliance, and Management Analysis, finds and concludes that:

• The Airport's actions concerning the Consent Order and its 14 CFRPart 150 NCP do not deprive the Airport from its rights and powers necessary to operate the airport and thus do not constitute a violation ofGrant Assurance 5 PreservingRights andPowers.



### • The Airport is not inviolation ofGrant Assurance 16 Coriformity to Plans and Specifications, 

### because GrantAssurance 16 is grant-specific and there is no grant at this time associated withthe acquisition or sound insulation oftheproperties in question.

• The Airport is not in violation ofGrant Assurance 21 Compatible Land Use, 

### because its recent actions, as well as its action since 1982, have been very consistent with the requirement to mitigate incompatible land uses near the airport.

• The Airport is not in violation ofGrant Assurance 35 Relocation of RealProperty Acquisition 

### because there has been no specific action(s), which would be ripe for review under this requirement.
ORDER ACCORDINGLY, 

### the Director finds that the City ofAtlanta (Airport) is not in violation ofFederallaw and the Federal grant obligations. All Motions not expressly granted in this Determination are denied.
RIGHT OF APPEAL


### This Director's Determination is an initial agency determination and does not constitute final agency action and order subject tojudicial review. [14 CFR 16.247(b)(2)]. A party to this Complaint adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determinationto the FAA Associate Administrator for Airports pursuantto 14 CFR l6.33(c) withinthirty (30) days after service ofthe Director's Determination.

Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
Page 44148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, eta!. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The following items constitute the administrative record inthis proceeding:
FAAExhibit 1 

### Item 1
Part 16 Complaint dated August 6, 2012, including Exhibits 1-32:
Exhibit 1 Tax Bill Avery Park 2609 Charleston Drive. Exhibit2 Tax Bill Harrington Park 2800 Camp CreekParkway. Exhibit 3 Tax Bill Colony at Camp Creek 3222 Kennelworth Drive. Exhibit 4 Tax Bill Roosevelt Park 2601 Roosevelt. Exhibit 5 Tax Bill Diplomat Townhomes 2700 Camp Creek Parkway. Exhibit 6 Not included as part ofthe submission. Exhibit 7 Tax Bill Hartsfield Landing 3001 Roosevelt. Exhibit 8 ATL Airport Master Record. Exhibit 9 Wikipedia Article. Exhibit 10 AlP Grants to ATL. Exhibit 11 March 21,2007 HJAIA FAR Part 150 StudyNEM Report (Vol. I). Exhibit 12 April30, 2007 FAR Part 150 Study Public Participation Program (Vol. III). Exhibit 

### 13 September 5, 2007 FARPart 150 Study Noise Compatibility Report (Vol. 

### II). Exhibit 14 January 25,2008 FAA Record ofDecision (Including Record ofApproval). Exhibit 15 January 24, 2008 Serritt Memo. Exhibit 16 May 15, 2012 Letter from StevenTaber to L. E. Miller and C. Hampton. Exhibit 17 May 17, 2012 Letter from John Watkins to StevenTaber. Exhibit 18 May 22, 2012 Taber Watkins Letter Scheduling Settlement Conference. Exhibit 19 June 7, 2012 Taber Hadley LetterreSettlement Meeting. Exhibit 20 June 11,2012 Hadley Taber re Telephone Call. Exhibit 21 June 11, 2012 Taber Hadley Letter re Telephone Call. Exhibit 22 June 25, 2012 Taber Hadley Letter re Telephone Call w Exhibit. Exhibit23 July 2, 2012 Hadley Taber Letter response to 06-25-12letter. Exhibit24 July 5, 2012 Taber Hadley Letter re Response to 07-02-12 Letter. Exhibit25 July 26, 2012 Declaration ofSteven M. Taber (unsigned). Exhibit 26 April23, 2007 Federal RegisterNotice ofReceipt ofNEMS Report. Exhibit 27 July 24, 2007 Federal Register Notice Requesting Suspension ofReview. Exhibit 28 NCP Figure 6-2 with Labels Indicating Landowner's Properties. Exhibit 29 February 4, 2008 Federal RegisterNotice indicating approval ofATLNCP. Exhibit 30 August 2, 2010 Wynterbrook Consent Order Fully Executed W Exhibits (4). Exhibit 31 January 18,2011 Favors Nissalke email re: Conference Call. Exhibit 32 Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances (3-2005).
Item2


### FAA Notice of Docketing, August 27, 2012.


### Item3
The City of Atlanta'sAnswer to the Complaint andRequest for Investigation, September 18,2012, including Exhibits 1-11: Page 45148

### Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, 

### et al. v. The City 

### OfAtlanta- FAA 

### Docket No. 16-12-09



### Exhibit 1 US District Court- Document 1: Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. Filed 04/18/2008. 

### Exhibit 2 US District Court- Document 64: Consent Order, and 4 exhibits. Filed 08/02/2010. 

### Exhibit 

### 3 Fulton County Superior Court: Complaint. Filed 08/09/2011. 

### Exhibit 4 Fulton County Superior Court: Affidavit ofDr. Thomas E. Nissalke, with exhibits. Executed 07119/2012. 

### Exhibit 5 Fulton County Superior Court: Excerpts ofDeposition Transcript ofMike Flannagan. Taken 06/15/2012. 

### Exhibit 6 Fulton County Superior Court: Excerpts ofDeposition Transcript ofNicole Flarrnagan. Taken 07/16/2012. 

### Exhibit 7 US Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration: Affidavit ofThomas E. Nissalke. Executed 09/13/2012. 

### Exhibit 

### 8 Letter ofThomas E. Nissalke ofCity ofAtlanta, Department ofAviation to Scott L. 

### Seritt. Dated 09/14/2012. 

### Exhibit 9 Fulton County Board ofAssessors Tax Office Records. 

### Exhibit 10 Email from Mike Flannagan to TomNissalke. Dated 03/24/2010. 

### Exhibit 11 Final Policy on Part 150 Approval ofNoise Mitigation Measures: Effect onthe Use of Federal Grants for Noise Mitigation Projects.


### Item4
The City of Atlanta'sMotion to Dismiss the Complaint andRequest for Investigation, September 18, 2012. 

### ItemS Complainants' ConsolidatedReply to Respondent'sAnswer andMotion to Dismiss Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, October 16,2012.



### ltem6 Exhibit 1 PGL-08-02. 

### Exhibit 2 ACRP Report 056. 

### Exhibit 

### 3 AC 150-5070 6B chgl.

The City of Atlanta's Reply to Developers' ConsolidatedReplyRegarding Part 16 Complaint andRequest for Investigation, October 22, 2012.


### Item 7 Complainants'Motion to SupplementRecord, February 11, 2013. 

### Exhibit A 

### Sanford Fidell memorandum and data CD. 

### ItemS Respondent's The City of Atlanta'sResponse to Developer/Complainants'Motion to Supplement the Record, February 20, 2013, including Exhibits A-B:

Page 46148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The Ciiy OfAtlanta- FAA Docket No. 16-12-09

ExhibitA Virginia One Development, LLC, v. The Citv ofAtlanta, Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants City ofAtlanta's Firstrequest for Admission, Superior Court ofFulton County, State ofGeorgia. (Includes exhibits). 

### Exhibit B Virginia One Development, LLC, v. The City ofAtlanta, Deposition ofThomas E. Nissalke, Superior Court ofFulton County, State ofGeorgia, June 13,2012. 

### ltem9
Notice of Extension ofTime, July 8, 2013. 

### Item 10 Complainants'SecondMotion to SupplementRecord, August 14, 2013, including Exhibits B-D: 

### Exhibit B Ciiy ofAtlanta's Proposed Amendmentto its Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). 

### Exhibit C Comments the Landowners Submittedto Atlanta's inresponse to the proposedNCP amendment. 

### Exhibit D City ofAtlanta Declaratory Judgment Complaint. 

### Item 11
Notice of Withdrawal, August 19, 2013. 

### Item 12 Respondent's The City of Atlanta'sMotion to Supplement the Record, August 19, 2013, including Exhibits 1-3: 

### Exhibit 1 Letter from StevenM. Taber to EPA, FAA, and Ciiy ofAtlanta, April9, 2013. 

### Exhibit 

### 2 Complaintfor DeclaratoryJudgment, The City ofAtlanta, Georgia v. Avery Park Partners, LLC d/b/a Avery Park, Colony Creek, LLC, and The City ofCollege Park, July 26,2013. 

### Exhibit 

### 3 Article entitled Uncertainties in MeasuringAircraft Noise andPredicting Community Response to It. Noise Control Eng., Jan-Feb. 2007. 

### Item 13 Respondent's The City of Atlanta'sResponse to Claimant's Motion to Supplement the RecordDatedAugust 14, 2013, August 27, 2013. 

### Item 14
Notice of Extension of Time, December 30, 2013. 

### Item 15 Complainants'Notice ofChange in Ownership, February 18,2014. 

### Item 16 Respondent's The City of Atlanta'sMotion to Supplement the Record, May 12,2014, including Exhibits AB: Page 47148Virginia One Development (VOD), LLC, et al. v. The City OfAtlanta-FAA Docket No. 16-12-09



### Exhibit A - The City ofAtlanta, Georgia vs. Averv Park Partners, LLC, Deposition ofDavid Scott Henderson, and exhibits, February 19, 2014. 

### Exhibit B- Letter from FAQA ADO to Mr. Thomas E. Nissalke, Aprill4, 2014.


### Item 17
Notice of Extension of Time, November 6, 2014.


### Item 18
AlP Grant History for ATL, FAA, November 21,2014.


### Item 19
FAA letter to Airport, May 2, 2013.


### Item 20 Complainants' inquiry withthe FAA's Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, April9, 2013.


### Item 21 Respondent The City of Atlanta'sNotice of Leave of Absence, June 23,2014.


### Item22 Hartsfield-JacksonAtlantaInternationalAirportNosie LandReuse Plan, October 2009. 

### Item23
AtlantaInternationalAirportNosieAircraftNoise Information, October 19,2006. 

### ltem24
Letter from Airport to FAA, May 21, 2013.


### Item 25 Hartsfield-JacksonAtlantaInternationalAirport2010AnnualReport, 2010.


### Item 26
AnnualEnvironmentalReport2010 Progress Update, Hartsfield-JacksonAtlanta InternationalAirport, 2010.


### Item 27 College Park Comprehensive Plan. 2011-2031

Page 48148