Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton

Citation841 F.3d 133
Decision Date04 November 2016
Docket Number15-2465-cv(XAP),Docket Nos. 15-2334-cv(L)
Parties Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc., Analar Corporation, Associated Aircraft Group, Inc., Eleventh Street Aviation LLC, Helicopter Association International, Inc., Heliflite Shares, LLC, Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Sound Aircraft Services, Inc., National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants, v. Town of East Hampton, Defendant–Appellant–Cross–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Kathleen M. Sullivan (W. Eric Pilsk, Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP, Washington, D.C.; David M. Cooper, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, New York, on the brief), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, New York, for DefendantAppellantCross–Appellee.

Lisa R. Zornberg (Helen A. Gredd, Jonathan D. Lamberti, on the brief), Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP, New York, New York, for PlaintiffsAppelleesCross–Appellants.

Lauren L. Haertlein, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C., Amicus Curiae in support of PlaintiffsAppellees–Cross–Appellants.

Before: Jacobs, Calabresi, Raggi, Circuit Judges.

Reena Raggi

, Circuit Judge:

We here consider cross appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge ), granting in part and denying in part a motion for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of three local laws restricting operations at a public airport located in and owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton, New York (the “Town” and the “Airport”). See Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton , 152 F.Supp.3d 90 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. Plaintiffs, who sought the injunction, represent various aviation businesses that use the Airport and representative entities. The district court enjoined the enforcement of only one of the challenged laws—imposing a weekly flight limit—concluding that it reflected a likely unreasonable exercise of the Town's reserved proprietary authority, which is excepted from federal preemption by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3).

The Town challenges the district court's rejection of this proprietor exception with respect to the weekly flight-limit law. Plaintiffs defend the district court's decision as to that law, and, on cross appeal, argue that enforcement of all three challenged laws should have been enjoined. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that none of the challenged laws falls within the ADA's proprietor exception to federal preemption because the Town failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA”), see 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521

–47534, in enacting them. The Town counters that plaintiffs cannot invoke equity jurisdiction to enforce ANCA's procedural requirements, and that compliance with these procedures is not required because the Town is willing to forgo future federal funding for its airport.

We identify merit in plaintiffs' ANCA argument and resolve these cross appeals on that basis without needing to address the Town's proprietor exception challenge. Specifically, we conclude that plaintiffs (1) can invoke equity jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the challenged laws; and (2) are likely to succeed on their preemption claim because it appears undisputed that the Town enacted all three laws without complying with ANCA's procedural requirements, which apply to public airport operators regardless of their federal funding status.

We affirm the district court's order insofar as it enjoins enforcement of the weekly flight-limit law, but we vacate the order insofar as it declines to enjoin enforcement of the other two challenged laws. In so ruling, we express no view as to the wisdom of the local laws at issue. We conclude only that federal law mandates that such laws be enacted according to specified procedures, without which they cannot claim the proprietor exception to federal preemption. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the entry of a preliminary injunction as to all three laws and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background1
A. The East Hampton Airport

The Town of East Hampton, located approximately 100 miles east of New York City, is a popular summer vacation destination on the south shore of Long Island. Its year-round population of approximately 21,500 more than quadruples to approximately 94,000 in the months of May through September (the “Season”). This results in increased traffic, including air traffic, and attendant noise.

The Town owns and operates East Hampton Airport (the Airport), which is a public use, general aviation facility servicing domestic and international flights. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has designated the Airport as a “regional” facility “significant” to the national aviation system. J.A. 117. Although the Airport provides no scheduled commercial service, it serves a range of private and chartered helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. In 2014, the Airport supported 25,714 operations, i.e. , takeoffs or landings, by such aircraft. On the busiest day of that calendar year, Friday, July 25, 2014, the Airport supported 353 operations between 3:04 a.m. and 11:08 p.m.

B. The Town's Efforts To Control Airport Noise

For more than a decade before the enactment of the laws at issue in this action, Town residents had expressed concern about Airport noise. Counsel for the Town, however, repeatedly advised the Town that federal law placed significant limitations on its ability to restrict Airport access to reduce noise.

1. Federal Limitations on Local Noise Regulation
a. The Town's Receipt of AIP Grants

The Town was advised that its obligation to comply with federal law derived, in part, from its receipt of federal funding under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (the “AAIA”), Pub. L. No. 97–248, 96 Stat. 671

(recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 47101 et seq. ). The AAIA established the Airport Improvement Program (the “AIP”), which extends grants to airports that, in return, provide statutorily mandated assurances to remain publicly accessible and to abide by federal aviation law and policy. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 47107(a)(1), 47108(a).

The Town's most recent AIP grant, received on September 25, 2001, was for $1.4 million to rehabilitate the Airport's terminal apron. In the grant agreement, the Town certified that for a period of twenty years—i.e. , through September 25, 2021—it would comply with certain specified assurances. See Pacific Coast Flyers, Inc. v. County of San Diego , FAA Dkt. No. 16–04–08, 2005 WL 1900515, at *11 (July 25, 2005)

(“Upon acceptance of an AIP grant, the grant assurances become a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal government.”). These included assurances to make the Airport available “for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities,” J.A. 61 (Grant Assurance 22(a)), and to “comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds ... including but not limited to ... Title 49 U.S.C., subtitle VII,” id. at 53 (Grant Assurance 1(a)).

b. ANCA's Procedural Requirements for Local Laws Limiting Access to Public Airports

Subtitle VII (referenced in Grant Assurance 1(a), at Part B, Chapter 475, Subchapter II) encompasses the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA”), Pub. L. No. 101–508, 104 Stat. 1388

(recodified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521 –47534 ). This statute, which is at the core of plaintiffs' preemption claim, (1) directs the Department of Transportation (which has delegated its authority to the FAA) to establish “a national aviation noise policy,” 49 U.S.C. § 47523(a), including “a national program for reviewing airport noise and access restrictions on operations of Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft,” id. § 47524(a); and (2) outlines the requirements of that program. Acting under the authority delegated by the Department of Transportation, the FAA promulgated a national aviation noise policy through 14 C.F.R. Part 161, the “notice, review, and approval requirements,” which “apply to all airports imposing noise or access restrictions.” 14 C.F.R. § 161.3(a), (c) (emphasis added).

ANCA's requirements vary based on the type of aircraft at issue. “Aircraft are classified roughly according to the amount of noise they produce, from Stage 1 for the noisiest to Stage 3 for those that are relatively quieter.” City of Naples Airport Auth. v. FAA , 409 F.3d 431, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

.2 In ANCA, Congress states that airport operators may impose noise or access restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft “only” upon 180 days' notice and an opportunity for comment. 49 U.S.C. § 47524(b).3 Local restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft “may become effective only if” they have either been “agreed to by the airport proprietor and all aircraft operators” or “submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation after an airport or aircraft operator's request for approval.” Id. § 47524(c)(1)

.

c. Federal Preemption of Local Police Power To Regulate Airport Noise

The Town was further advised that, even after expiration of the twenty-year AAIA compliance period—indeed, even if it had never accepted any AIP grants—the Airport would not be “free to operate as it wishes” because the federal statutory limitations applied regardless of whether an airport is subject to grant assurances. J.A. 239–240; see also id. at 273 (stating that “Town does not now have ‘local control’ and seeking FAA grants does not fundamentally change that legal reality,” and that [o]nly way to achieve local control is to close airport”).

Such limitations were first acknowledged by the Supreme Court more than 40 years ago in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. , 411...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT