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 who 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 that differ by weekends (7 p.m. to 9:30 a.m.) or 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.
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—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 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.
