Opinion ID: 2514143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Federal Law Precludes the Payment of Airport Revenues to OHA

Text: In 1982, Congress enacted the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, Pub.L. No. 97-248, § 511(a)(12), 96 Stat. 671, 687 (1982) (codified, as subsequently amended, at 49 U.S.C. § 47107(b)(1)), which directed all airport owners to use all revenues generated by the airport ... for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and directly related to the actual transportation of passengers or property[.] In 1994, Congress specified that the use of airport revenues for general economic development, marketing, and promotional activities unrelated to airports or airport systems was prohibited. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Authorization Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-305, § 112(a)(2)(B), 108 Stat. 1569, 1574-75 (1994) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47107( l )(2)(b)). The State, in its opening brief, argues that the aforementioned federal law bars the State from using monies derived from the State's airport system to pay OHA. [12] However, in making payments to OHA from airport revenues, the State had previously justified the payments as a form of ground rent and, therefore, deemed such payments as an excludable airport-related expenditure. In 1995, the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted an investigation into the propriety of the State's payments to OHA from airport revenues. In a 1996 report, the DOT Inspector General (IG) concluded that the payments were a diversion of airport revenue in violation of 49 § U.S.C. 47107(b). FAA Report No. R9-FA-6-015, Airport Improvement Program Grants Provided to the Hawaii Department of Transportation, at 11 (Sept. 19, 1996). As a result, the IG recommended that the FAA withhold payments on current grants and approval of further grants[] if the [State] does not: [] recover the $28.2 million in airport revenues paid to OHA for nonairport purposes[.] Id. at 14-15. In April 1997, the FAA announced that it concurred in the IG's finding and recommendation. Memorandum from FAA Acting Administrator to Acting Inspector General of 4/25/97, at 1. [13] In response, Congress enacted the Forgiveness Act, which provides in relevant part: (7) [C]ontrary to the prohibition against diverted airport revenues from airport purposes under Section 47107 of title 49, United States Code, certain payments from airport revenues may have been made for the betterment of Native Hawaiians, or Alaskan natives based upon the claims related to lands ceded to the United States [.] .... (b) TERMINATION OF REPAYMENT RESPONSIBILITY.Notwithstanding the provisions of 47107 of title 49, United States Code, or any other provision of law, monies paid for claims related to ceded lands and diverted from airport revenues and received prior to April 1, 1996, by any entity for the betterment of Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Alaska Natives, shall not be subject to repayment. (c) PROHIBITION ON FURTHER DIVERSION. There shall be no further payment of airport revenues for claims related to ceded lands, whether characterized as operating expenses, rent, or otherwise, and whether related to claims for periods of time prior to or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) CLARIFICATION Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any existing Federal statutes, enactments, or trust obligations created thereunder, or any statute of the several States that define the obligations of such States to Native Americans, Native Hawaiians or Alaska natives in connection with ceded lands, except to make clear that airport revenues may not be used to satisfy such obligations. Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub.L. 105-66, § 340, 111 Stat. 1425 (1998) (emphases added). The plain language of the Forgiveness Act clearly prohibits the payment of airport revenues to OHAwhether characterized as operating expenses, rent or otherwise, and whether related to [past, present or future] claimsin satisfaction of the State's obligations. Although Congress does not have the power to instruct this state on how to expend its own funds, Congress does have the authority to condition the use of federal funds. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-08, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (explaining that, consistent with the constitutional limitations on Congressional powers, pursuant to article I of and the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution, Congress, under its spending power, may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds provided that the conditions themselves are not unconstitutional). Assuming arguendo that the Forgiveness Act represents a valid condition on the receipt of federal airport funds, we must determine whether the condition that airport revenues not be paid to OHA conflicts with the provisions of Act 304.