Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust Ex Rel. Cinnabar Service Co. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18508

TAIT ran an FAA‑funded airport noise abatement program and paid contractors $705,913.40 after project delays; FAA initially reimbursed but later sought repayment after deeming some costs unallowable.
TAIT repaid disputed amounts, sought reconsideration, and in 2010 received partial supplemental reimbursements totaling $569,566.00.
On January 23, 2012 TAIT submitted additional documentation claiming numerous remaining eligible costs; on October 24, 2012 the FAA declined further reimbursement as not warranted.
On December 31, 2012 the FAA Associate Administrator sent a letter saying TAIT had not delineated reimbursed vs. outstanding allowable costs, invited resubmission, and indicated no favorable determination absent further material from TAIT.
TAIT did not resubmit; instead it filed a breach‑of‑contract action in the Court of Federal Claims on November 14, 2013; that court transferred the matter to the D.C. Circuit as a petition for review of agency action.
The D.C. Circuit treated the December 31, 2012 letter as a final agency order under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 and dismissed TAIT’s petition as untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after that order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs review: § 47111 (with withholding/hearing procedures) or general review § 46110?	§ 47111 applies; TAIT is entitled to the hearing procedure for withheld grant payments.	§ 47111 does not apply because FAA found costs not allowable (no payment was "due"); thus § 46110 governs review.	Held: § 46110 governs; § 47111 applies only to withholding payments that are due, not determinations that costs were never allowable.
Was the FAA’s Dec. 31, 2012 communication a final agency order under § 46110?	The FAA did not issue a final, reviewable order.	The Dec. 31 letter consummated FAA decisionmaking and determined rights/obligations; it is final.	Held: The letter is a final order suitable for judicial review under § 46110.
Was the petition timely under the 60‑day rule?	Delay was justified by ambiguity in FAA communications; TAIT needed clarification before filing.	The 60‑day clock ran from Dec. 31, 2012; TAIT filed Nov. 14, 2013 and did not show reasonable grounds for delay.	Held: Petition untimely; filed well after 60 days and TAIT failed to justify delay.
Does agency ambiguity excuse late filing?	Ambiguity in the FAA letter caused TAIT’s delay and should excuse untimeliness.	Ambiguity does not excuse delay; parties must assume finality or file protectively.	Held: Ambiguity does not excuse delay here; court follows precedent requiring protective filing when in doubt.

Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 254 (Fed. Cl. 2015) (prior Court of Federal Claims decision addressing jurisdiction and facts)
Vill. of Bensenville v. FAA, 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (finality requirement for FAA orders under § 46110)
Aerosource, Inc. v. Slater, 142 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 1998) (letters can constitute reviewable orders)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (final agency action test: consummation and legal consequences)
Burdue v. FAA, 774 F.3d 1076 (6th Cir. 2014) (administrative record sufficiency for review)
TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 808 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2015) (informal communications can be final orders)
Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency confusion may excuse delay in limited circumstances)
Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. FAA, 939 F.2d 954 (11th Cir. 1991) (agency inconsistent communications can justify excusing delay)
Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. DOT, 827 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (ambiguity in agency letter does not excuse delay)
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. FAA, 821 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (same as to protective filing obligation)