Story ID: 
East Hampton Delays Restrictions Again at HTO
By: Kerry Lynch
Caption: East Hampton agreed to a further delay in enforcement of new restrictions at HTO after the District Court postponed a decision on the lawsuit.
Word Count: 691
The Town of East Hampton is embroiled in a multi-pronged legal battle over restrictions that it adopted, but had not yet implemented, for East Hampton Airport (HTO). In April the town adopted a series of restrictions that include a nighttime curfew, an extended curfew for “noisy” aircraft and limits on summertime operations of “noisy” aircraft to one weekly. Most business jets and helicopters would qualify as “noisy” aircraft. The town, however, dropped its plan to ban helicopters outright.

In moving forward with the restrictions, the town cited thousands of noise complaints and claims it has political support for its efforts. House aviation subcommittee vice chair Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) earlier this year urged FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to stand by earlier promises that the agency will not enforce certain grant assurances, clearing the town to adopt the noise restrictions. And, the New York lawmaker successfully inserted a provision into the House Fiscal Year 2016 transportation appropriations bill essentially prohibiting the FAA from taking any administrative or civil action against the sponsor of HTO.

Airport backers, however, have long argued that the complaints stem from a minority; one household alone was responsible for 2,000 complaints, Jeff Smith, chairman of the Eastern Region Helicopter Council (ERHC), testified during a hearing in East Hampton. HTO supporters, including the ERHC and national groups such as NBAA and HAI, filed a lawsuit calling the restrictions unfair, unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory. 

“Despite repeated warnings to town officials from NBAA and other aviation interests that local airports do not have the authority to regulate the types of aircraft that can operate at that airport, East Hampton is setting the stage for years of costly litigation by attempting to implement severe operating restrictions at HTO,” said NBAA COO Steve Brown. “East Hampton is bound by grant assurances and other regulations that require it to operate in compliance with federal aviation law and policy.”  
Legal Decisions Pending
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the restrictions from going into effect. The U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York heard arguments on May 18, and Judge Joanna Seybert initially indicated plans to issue a decision by June 8. But Seybert pushed off the decision for three weeks, citing the complexity of the issues. The town accordingly had agreed to hold off enforcement. “The Town Board remains confident that it will prevail in the litigation; however, out of respect for the judicial process, the Town has agreed to continue not to enforce the local laws pending the court’s decision,” it said. The lawsuit is one of several legal and/or administrative actions that industry groups are taking to combat the restrictions. Earlier they filed a lawsuit to compel the FAA to ensure the restrictions complied with the law.

In addition, NBAA joined a number of aviation businesses in filing a Part 16 complaint urging the FAA to issue a cease-and-desist order and finding that the restrictions violate grant agreements. The Part 16 complaint further asks the FAA to “take corrective action subject to the suspension of further AIP grants and other appropriate enforcement measures.”

The complaint argues that the town’s restrictions would prohibit up to 23 percent of operations and “are likely to cripple the airport permanently–by driving existing tenants out of business and undercutting the airport budget.”

As for the FAA, it has been examining the legality of the restrictions and whether they can be permitted. Although the agency had indicated a desire to work with the town on its noise issue, it backed the issuance of a temporary restraining order to give it time to review the issues. The agency wrote the court asking for the restraining order, saying it has not yet taken a view on the merits of the lawsuits, but believes “an injunction is necessary so that the FAA can properly consider [the] plantiff’s claims and the town restrictions, develop its position on the issues, and should the FAA determine the town restrictions are contrary to federal law(s) and/or FAA regulation(s)…commence appropriate enforcement action.”