East Hampton Eyes Airport Restrictions, Mulls Closure

East Hampton, New York officials are weighing a variety of options under a formal FAA Part 161 study process to curb operations and/or shutter East Hampton Airport (HTO) altogether. The town board agreed to move forward with the Part 161 process last fall after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn an earlier ruling against East Hampton’s effort to impose curfews and certain other “noisy” aircraft restrictions.

These court decisions essentially provided the town no other option but to undertake a Part 161 study if it hopes to impose certain operational restrictions in the short term. However, the process is so costly and involved that only a handful of communities have gone that route, mostly without success. 

The town retained the California-based law firm Cooley LLP to undertake the study with the hopes of having it prepared for public comment by the fall. “This seems to be quite an aggressive time frame,” said Jol Silversmith, an attorney with Zuckert Scoutt & Rasenberger, which represents NBAA on issues. “Part 161 studies are fairly rare and those that have been conducted in the past have taken quite a bit of time.”

Following the comment period on such a study, the FAA would still have to accept it and review the study before it must undergo a second public comment period.

In a recent update before town officials, Cooley attorney Bill O'Connor outlined options for restrictions, including a blanket curfew from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.; designated curfews for weekends (7 p.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and weekdays (8 p.m. to 8 a.m.); a requirement for prior permission to operate during designated hours; a combination of a curfew with extended hours that applied only to so-called “noisy” aircraft; a noise quota system for limits; a ban on the noisiest aircraft; or closure of the airport after the federal grant period ends in 2021. Officials stressed that these options can be combined, and the presentation included alternatives for variants based on whether an aircraft was noisy.

National Precedent

Silversmith notes that the presentation doesn’t yet provide details on data that justifies the restrictions, and adds that the FAA has “set a very high bar” requiring the justification for Part 161. But Silversmith concedes that NBAA and other business aviation advocates have long been concerned about the possible closure of the airport. The town stopped taking grants for the airport in 2001, opening the possibility for closure. Unlike Santa Monica in California—which also faces the prospect of closure—HTO is not one of the surplus property airports, which are ostensibly required to remain open in perpetuity. This puts HTO on a list of possible endangered airports.

“The national context is important here, because airports like East Hampton or Santa Monica do have some unique facts, but they both reflect trends that concern us of communities trying to find ways to impose piecemeal restrictions on a national system,” Silversmith said. “We…consider this dangerous for the economy [and] dangerous for public safety because a lot of these airports are critical assets for [the communities]. There is very much a tip of the iceberg element to that.”

Alex Gertsen, director of airports and ground infrastructure for NBAA, noted that local anti-airport activists argue that the airport does not serve their community. But he noted the economic importance of HTO to the local community, as well as access to emergency services. “It certainly is a lifeline for the community and it would be very shortsighted if they close it,” Gertsen said. He pointed to a 2011 economic impact study of the airport—the most recently available—finding that it generated $47.9 million in direct spending. This is well over half the $77 million budget for the entire town in 2017. “You can see the airport plays a significant role,” he said.

Misallocated Funding

NBAA has been working with local airport advocates and aviation businesses to try to educate the public on the importance of the airport. The association also is seeking ways to rebuild investment in the airport. This includes its ongoing Part 16 complaint over the city's use of airport revenue. The association teamed with nearly a dozen local aviation companies to urge the FAA to find that East Hampton diverted airport revenue to pay for legal fees in violation of grant obligations.

The organizations filed the appeal in April, asking the agency to reconsider its earlier decision against enforcement on the use of HTO funds, which they said went to pay for the town’s unsuccessful legal effort to uphold its restrictions at the airport.

An FAA decision against enforcement, NBAA said, “is contrary to agency precedent, is bad policy, and is plainly at odds with congressional instructions.”

“There should be no doubt that the airport dollars spent by the town in litigation seeking to perpetuate the illegal restrictions constituted an improper use of airport revenue,” NBAA and the others wrote in the appeal. “The town explicitly adopted an anti-airport agenda, declined to utilize FAA administrative procedures, and represented to its taxpayers that—even though litigation would almost inevitably result from its campaign—the consequences would be cost- and risk-free.”

The appeal further noted that while this effort is ongoing, “the airport has been starved of needed improvements that could have been funded with those diverted funds. The town now should be required to make HTO whole.” It also argues that the FAA is congressionally compelled to take action, citing a requirement to apply airport funds for the benefit of the airport. “The town had an explicit anti-airport and bad-faith agenda...The FAA should now require their reimbursement, with statutory interest.”

“While East Hampton apparently has spent millions of dollars over the past several years in its attempts to impose access restrictions that the federal courts concluded violated federal requirements, the FAA decision puts at risk far more than the dollars currently at stake at HTO,” added NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. It could jeopardize the national system of airports by providing airport sponsors an option of using airport revenues to restrict or close airports, he said.

Blade Airport License Revoked

While the Parts 161/16 efforts are ongoing, the town continues to look for ways to address its concerns. One such move included revoking the “airport license agreement” with Fly Blade. New York-based Blade arranges on-demand and scheduled flights to and from the airport using a series of Part 135 operators. The “airport license agreement” refers to Blade's rented "airport terminal counter space," which it has used over the past three years to support those operations.

East Hampton is also filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, asking whether Blade is complying with federal obligations. “Our small, local general aviation airport is not designed for scheduled air service,” said Sylvia Overby, a member of the town council and co-liaison to HTO. “The town will not tolerate operators violating the law, especially when the safety of the flying public is jeopardized by unfair and deceptive business practices of operators.”

Jeffrey Bragman, another member of the town council and HTO co-liaison, added, “Until such time that they prove that they are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, they have no place at East Hampton Airport.”

But while expressing concerns about the legality of the operations, East Hampton supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc also cited concerns about a “steep increase in air traffic” through smartphone applications or other services directly offered to customers.

As for Blade, attorney Edward Burke said, “Blade arranges helicopter and seaplane flights to multiple destinations in the East End of Long Island and elsewhere in the Northeast in full compliance with all DOT regulations. The company has requested a meeting with East Hampton Town representatives to provide an understanding as to how Blade arranges flights within federal guidelines.”