[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10771 ____________________ PALM BEACH COUNTY, CITY OF ATLANTIS, FLORIDA, Petitioners, versus FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATOR,

Respondent,

CAPTAIN ERROL FORMAN,

Intervenor. USCA11 Case: 21-10771 Date Filed: 11/18/2022 Page: 2 of 45

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10771

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Federal Aviation Administration Agency No. 16-17-13 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. ED CARNES, Circuit Judge: Lantana Airport is a small regional airport in Palm Beach County, Florida. Captain Errol Forman is a former commercial pilot who now flies a small Cessna jet for his own personal use. Twice in May 2016, Forman landed his Cessna at the Lantana Air- port. It might have been a match made in the heavens, if not for a county ordinance. That ordinance on its face prohibits “pure turbo-jet aircraft” and cargo-carrying aircraft that weigh more than 12,500 pounds from using Lantana Airport, and Palm Beach County enforces the ordinance in a way that actually bans all jets, not just the “pure turbo” variety. So when Forman landed his turbofan Cessna jet at Lantana Airport, the County threatened him with fines and jail time. That bit of unexpected rough air triggered even more tur- bulence. Forman complained to the Federal Aviation Administra- tion that the ordinance’s jet restriction violated a grant assurance the County had made to the FAA in exchange for federal airport USCA11 Case: 21-10771 Date Filed: 11/18/2022 Page: 3 of 45

21-10771 Opinion of the Court 3 improvement money. The FAA agreed with Forman and ordered the County to rescind the restriction. The County and the City of Atlantis, which borders Lantana Airport, have petitioned us for re- view of the FAA’s final agency decision. 1 Forman intervened. I. The Statutory and Regulatory Background The FAA gives grants to airport sponsors so that they can build and improve airports to “maintain a safe and efficient nation- wide” airport system. 49 U.S.C. §§ 47104(a), 47105(a); see also id. § 47102(26) (defining “sponsor” as “a public agency” or “a private owner of a public-use airport that submits . . . under this subchap- ter an application for financial assistance for the airport”). In ex- change for the grants, sponsors must agree to various written “as- surances,” including to make the airport “available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination.” Id. § 47107(a)(1); see also Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant Assurances, 79 Fed. Reg. 18,755, 18,755 (Apr. 3, 2014) (noting that a “complete list of the current grant assurances can be viewed” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances). This case concerns two grant assurances. The first and most important one is Grant Assurance 22, which is titled “Economic Nondiscrimination.” Fed. Aviation Ad- min., Airport Sponsor Assurances 10–11 (2014), 1 Atlantis joined the County’s petition because “its residents may be subject to aircraft noise and safety impacts” if the restriction is rescinded. We refer to the County and Atlantis collectively as “the County.” USCA11 Case: 21-10771 Date Filed: 11/18/2022 Page: 4 of 45

4 Opinion of the Court 21-10771 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/aip