1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

National Business Aircraft Association, Krueger Aviation, 

Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson 

Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, James Ross, 

Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Santa Monica, California 

Respondent 

ORDER 

Docket No. 16-14-04 

On December 23, the City of Santa Monica filed a request for a hearing under 14 CFR 

part 16, Subpart F. As grounds for the hearing, the City notes its "substantial stake" in the 

outcome of the matter and the existence of genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, and 

presumably in the alternative, the City has submitted its notice of appeal and brief seeking a 

final decision without a hearing pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33. Complainants oppose the 

request. Complainants argue that the City had not presented grounds for the exercise of the 

agency's discretion in this matter. 

When the agency provides the opportunity for a hearing, the Director's Determination will 

include a statement of its availability in the Determination itself. 14 CFR § 16.1 09(b ). The 

Director did not provide the opportunity for a hearing when he issued the Director's 

Determination at issue here. Nevertheless, we consider the City's request. 

The grounds under which FAA offers a hearing under part 16 are provided for in 14 CFR 

§§ 16.109(a) and 16.3l(d). In this case none ofthe mandatory triggers for a hearing exist; 

therefore the only basis would be the FAA's discretion. 

The City specifically argues that a hearing is warranted and appropriate given the scope and 

detail of the determination, the factual and legal issues raised, and the impact that the 

proposed restrictions and limitations contained within the determination will have on the City 

both immediately and in the future. The City also argues that genuine issues of material fact 
2 

exist that require oral examination of witnesses and submission of evidence, that the 

Determination raised a number of legal issues which can only be fully explored and addressed 

through a hearing, and that a hearing and limited discovery will allow FAA to develop a more 

complete and accurate administrative record on which to base its Final Agency Decision. 

Complainants contend in opposition that the issues cited by the City were or could have been 

raised in the City's previous pleadings, have been substantially considered, and do not now 

justify a hearing. Complainants further maintain that a hearing would create delay, impose 

additional expense and burdens on Complainants. 

The FAA disagrees with the City's argument that there are genuine issues of material fact 

warranting a hearing. In this determination, our holding is based, among other reasons, on the 

legal conclusion that under contract and grant law, consideration was required in return for the 

additional funds provided by the grant amendment. In finding a 2023 expiration date, we 

found that the "only consideration for the amendment provided by the City .... would be the 

continued applicability of the grant assurances using the date of the signed second amendment 

as the starting date." 

Moreover, many of the issues the City seeks to raise in a hearing are issues that it raised or 

could have raised in the proceeding below. We note that the City never sought discovery in 

the Director's Determination. 14 CFR 16.23(1). The FAA finds that the City has adequate 

redress in its appeal without a hearing, as provided for under 14 CFR §16.33, and its right to 

judicial review. The decision on whether to afford more procedural process in investigating 

and resolving a complaint is a matter of the FAA's discretion. Wilson Air Center LLC v. FAA, 

372 F.3d 807, 817 (61

h Cir. 2004). 

The FAA afforded a discretionary hearing in a prior case involving the City of Santa Monica. 

However, that is not dispositive. The prior case is not binding because hearings in 

circumstances like these remain discretionary. The decision not to afford a hearing here is 

also consistent with past practice, particularly considering how rare discretionary hearings are 

in part 16 cases and the highly technical and fact-intensive nature of the central issues in the 

prior Santa Monica case, i.e., the safety of certain categories of aircraft. 

In the Director's Determination, FAA did not offer a hearing as a matter of its discretion. 

Based on the above, we revisit and find no grounds to change this decision. Therefore the 

City's motion is denied. This order supersedes any order on this issue that may have been 

dispatched in error prior to the date below. 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 21, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Order for FAA Docket 16-14-04 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

Counsel for Respondent 

Rick Cole 

City Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 209 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

manager(ivsmgov .net 

Marsha Moutrie, Esq. 

City Attorney 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Ivan Campbell, Esq. 

Deputy City Attorney 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 31 0 

Santa Monica, CA 9040 I 

Stelios Makrides 

Airport Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Via U.S. Mail 

Via U.S. Mail 

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-1 00 (1 ~: 

i 

1a Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

3