Viewing page 54 of 106

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-51-
declaratory judgement of unconstitutionality and invalidity or the ordinance, and an injunction against its enforcement. 101/
The plaintiffs have maintained that, even in the absence of a direct conflict with existing Federal regulations, the Hempstead ordinance is invalid because it invades the field of air traffic control and air traffic safety which the Federal Government has totally preempted. Among the arguments made by plaintiffs was that commercial aviation requires national uniformity of legislation, pointing out that within a very few minutes, an aircraft on its way to Europe from Kennedy would pass successively over eight different towns, within five townships, each of which could have differing noise ordinances. 102/
The testimony of the Administrator (Halaby) before the House Hearings on Aircraft Noise was referred to:
"It is very difficult for a crew to have one kind of procedure at one airport and another at another,

--
101/ American Airlines, et al v. Town of Hempstead, Adm'r FAA, Intervenor (USDC, E. D., N. Y. 63 Civ. 1280); The Port of New York Authority and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Intervenor v. Town of Hempstead, et al (USDC, E.D., N. Y. 64 Civ. 45); Charles H. Ruby, et al. v. Town of Hempstead (USDC, E. D., N. Y. 63 Civ. 1316).
102/ Plaintiffs' joint "Reply, and Supplemental, Memorandum in Support of motion for Preliminary Injunction", dated May 14, 1964, supra, n. 100.