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 ofSanta Monica, California Respondent

ORDER Docket No. 16-14-04

On December 23, the City ofSantaMonica filed a request for a hearing under 14 CFR part 16, Subpart F. As grounds for the hearing, the City notes its "substantial stake" inthe outcome ofthe matter and the existence ofgenuine issues ofmaterial fact. Additionally, and presumably inthe alternative, the City has submitted its notice ofappeal and briefseeking a final decision without a hearing pursuantto 14 CFR § 16.33. Complainants oppose the request. Complainants argue that the City had not presented grounds for the exercise ofthe agency's discretion in this matter. Whenthe agency provides the opportunity for a hearing, the Director's Determination will include a statement ofits availability inthe Determination itself. 14 CFR § 16.109(b). The Director did notprovide the opportunity for a hearing whenhe 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 ofthe determination, the factual and legal issues raised, and the impact that the proposed restrictions and limitations contained within the determination will have onthe City both immediately and inthe future. The City also argues that genuine issues ofmaterial fact2 existthat require oral examination ofwitnesses and submission ofevidence, that the Determinationraised a number oflegal issues which can only be fully explored and addressed through a hearing, and that a hearing and limited discovery will allow FAAto develop a more complete and accurate administrative record on whichto 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 ofmaterial fact warranting a hearing. Inthis determination, our holding is based, among other reasons, onthe legal conclusionthat under contract and grant law, consideration was required inreturn for the additional funds provided by the grant amendment. In finding a 2023 expiration date, we found that the "only consideration for the amendment providedby the City

....would be the continued applicability ofthe grant assurances usingthe date ofthe signed second amendment as the starting date." Moreover, many ofthe issues the City seeks to raise in a hearing are issues that it raised or could have raised inthe proceedingbelow. We note thatthe City never sought discovery in the Director's Determination. 14 CFR 16.23(1). The FAA finds that the Cityhas 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 ofthe FAA's discretion. WilsonAir Center LLCv. FAA, 372 F.3d 807, 817 (61 h Cir. 2004). The FAA afforded a discretionary hearing in a prior case involving the City ofSantaMonica. However, that is not dispositive. The prior case is not binding because hearings in circumstances like these remain discretionary. The decision notto 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 ofthe central issues inthe prior SantaMonica case, i.e., the safety ofcertain categories ofaircraft. Inthe Director's Determination, FAA did not offer a hearing as a matter ofits discretion. Based onthe above, we revisit and find no grounds to change this decision. Therefore the City's motion is denied. This order supersedes any order onthis issue that mayhave been dispatched in errorpriorto the date below.

DateCERTIFICATE 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 ofthe 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 CityManager City ofSanta Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 manager(ivsmgov.net Marsha Moutrie, Esq. City Attorney City ofSantaMonica 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Ivan Campbell, Esq. Deputy City Attorney City ofSanta Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 31 0 Santa Monica, CA 9040I Stelios Makrides Airport Manager City ofSanta Monica Airport Administration Building 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South SantaMonica, CA 90405 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket ViaU.S. Mail

ViaU.S. Mail

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-100

# (1**~:** i 

## 1a Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis 3