TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

Office of the Supervisor 

WILLIAIVI J. WILKINSON Office: (631) 324-4140 

Supervisor Fax:(631)324-2789 

—) 

June 21, 2010 

Federal Aviation Administration ; ; '-__ l 

Docket Operations M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

Re: Comments - NPRM Docket FAA-2010-0302 

Dear Docket: 

Enclosed please find comments on behalf of the Town of East Hampton on the FAA's proposed 

rule establishing a mandatory North Short Helicopter Route. Our comments, prepared by the 

Town with the assistance of counsel, stress that the FAA's proposed rule should be viewed as a 

first step in a comprehensive effort to address helicopter over flights in eastern Long Island. 

The Town is aware the FAA may receive comments fi-om the East End Helicopter Noise 

Stakeholders Group (multi-town) as well. The Group is comprised of representatives of the five 

east-end communities on Long Island. While the Town participated in discussions with this 

Group, and agreed to the Group's comments, the Town of East Hampton is in a unique situation 

as a great proportion of helicopter traffic arrives into and departs from our airport. For that 

reason, we believe it to be of paramount importance to comment on the NPRM as an individual 

municipality. 

In order to continue the effort that has just been started by this NPRM, the Town urges the FAA 

to convene a formal stakeholder group to participate in a study of alternative hehcopter routes in 

eastern Long Island - not only the proposed North Shore route but also a route along the South 

Shore of Long Island and transition routes between those off-shore routes and destinations inland 
June 21, 2010 

Page 2 

in eastern Long Island. We look forward to having a seat at the table as FAA continues to 

explore solutions that optimize helicopter routes that achieve the objective of reducing noise 

impacts. 

Sincerely, 

cc: 

Senator Charles Schumer 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

Congressman Tim Bishop 

Enclosure 
Comments of the 

Town of East Hampton 

Docket FAA-2010-0302 

New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Introduction and Summary 

The Town of East Hampton (Town) submits these comments in response to the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require helicopter operators to use a route named the 

"New York North Shore Route" (NYNSR) when operating in the vicinity of Long Island, 

New York. 

The Town of East Hampton believes that the NYNSR is a first step in addressing, in a 

comprehensive and thoughtful maimer, the problem of helicopter overflights and noise 

throughout the east end of Long Island. The preface to the NPRM asserts that the 

"intended effect" of the NPRM is to "reduce the noise impact on nearby communities" of 

helicopter traffic traveling from New York City and nearby areas to the communities in 

the east end of Long Island. The Town applauds the FAA (and our Congressional 

delegation) for recognizing that the noise impact of helicopter operations is a critical 

issue that warrants the unusual step of promulgation of a formal Part 93 rule setting forth 

mandatory flight patterns. The Town looks forward to working closely with the FAA and 

other stakeholders to complete the job that the NPRM starts. 

In order to complete the effort, the Town urges the FAA to convene a formal stakeholder 

process. This proposed process would be more inclusive than that proposed by the 

pending FAA Reauthorization legislation and would ensure that the Town, other airport 

proprietors and affected communities have a seat at the table in directing a 

comprehensive study of helicopter noise in the east end of Long Island. The study should 

examine alternative flight corridors and altitudes and should optimize those corridors and 

altitudes to achieve the FAA's laudable objective of reducing adverse impacts fi^om 

helicopter overflights. The Town expects that such study would not be limited to routes 

off the north shore of Long Island. Instead, the study should include mandatory corridors 

for helicopter operations off the south shore and on-shore for helicopters transitioning 

between those off-shore corridors and their ultimate origin/destination in eastern Long 

Island. The Town requests that the FAA make a commitment, in cormection with 

issuance of the NYNSR, that it will formally initiate a stakeholder process to evaluate 

and propose new Part 93 rules to implement the recommendations of such a study. 

Background 

The issue of helicopter noise has been a contentious issue in Long Island for years. The 

Town, which is the proprietor of East Hampton Airport (HTO), has been taking the lead 

in working aggressively with many stakeholders to address the helicopter problem. The 

Town has taken leadership on this issue for three reasons: 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Page 2 

First, HTO is the largest airport in eastern Long Island. It receives the largest proportion 

of helicopter traffic in the region and is located in close proximity to residential 

communities whose quiet envirormient is a key attribute. Residents and visitors to HTO 

are the predominant clientele for helicopter traffic in eastern Long Island. Finally, 

because of the Town's geographic location, the Town experiences almost all of the 

impacts of helicopter traffic. 

The FAA, through the unusual action of issuing an NPRM to estabUsh mandatory 

helicopter routes fi-om the New York metropolitan area to eastern Long Island, has 

clearly recognized the unique nature of (and almost ubiquitous) problem of helicopter 

overflights in the east end of Long Island. Not only does eastern Long Island receive an 

extraordinary amount of helicopter traffic (compared to other regions of the country) but 

the geography and residential patterns make solutions far more practical than in areas 

where helicopter traffic is primarily operations for medical, traffic, or public safety 

functions. 

For approximately six years, the Town has been working with stakeholders - including 

especially the FAA and the Eastern Region Helicopter Council - to develop voluntary 

procedures to mitigate the adverse effects of overflights within the Town and vicinity. 

Since 2004, the Town has published a pilot guide that describes and depicts preferred 

helicopter arrival and departure routes for helicopters using HTO. The Town has worked 

closely with the Congressional delegation and was instrumental in helping the Senator 

reach the Continued Cooperation and Compliance Agreement with the Eastern Region 

Helicopter Council in December 2007. 

We understand that the NPRM is designed to address two significant defects with the 

present flight patterns. First, the current procedures, as recognized in the Eastern Region 

Helicopter Council letter agreement, are voluntary. Despite the Town's efforts, Senator 

Schumer, former Senator Clinton and Representative Bishop and the FAA, (at least 

implicitly, through issuance of the NPRM) have all recognized that the voluntary 

procedures have not worked. Various figures have been offered as to the compHance 

rate, but everyone involved in the issue would agree that the compUance rate has not been 

satisfactory. 

Second, these current voluntary procedures address only a small segment of the problem 

of helicopter overflights and noise. The Town has long urged adoption of a preferential 

route off-shore along the south shore of Long Island. A mandatory south shore route 

would reduce overflights of incompatible land to a far greater degree than any existing 

voluntary (and proposed mandatory) NYNSR. To be clear, the Town of East Hampton 

requests that in addition to the proposed mandatory northern route, the FAA also 

implement a mandatory southern route for those hehcopters arriving and departing via 

East Hampton's southerly noise abatement route. Neither the existing - nor the proposed 

- procedures address routes and altitudes once helicopters exit the NYNSR. Because of 

geography, traffic transitioning between the NYNSR and either Francis S. Gabreski 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Page 3 

Airport (FOK) or HTO must overfly significant residential areas within the Town. In 

contrast, helicopter traffic using a south shore route would only minimally overfly 

residential areas, especially if traffic to and fi-om HTO used the Town's preferred 

Georgica Pond route firom the south. 

Finally, a consequence of the NPRM would be the preemption of language in the 

pending FAA Reauthorization Act that would mandate a study of hehcopter routes and 

noise mitigation in eastern Long Island. Largely in response to concerns in eastern Long 

Island that the present voluntary measures are unsatisfactory, and that a north shore-only 

route does not effectively minimize hehcopter overflight noise, Congressman Tim Bishop 

inserted language into the pending House version of the FAA Reauthorization Act that 

would mandate a study of helicopter routes and altitudes and recommend measures to 

abate the effects of helicopter operations on residential areas of Long Island. See H.R. 

1586 (111* Cong, 2"'' Sess.) § 818. The Town believes that a thorough study supervised 

jointly by the FAA, the Town, other airport proprietors, the operators' trade association, 

and other stakeholders, is a necessary predicate to a thoughtful and thorough resolution to 

the problem of helicopter noise in eastern Long Island. The Town urges the FAA to 

make clear that its NPRM is not intended to, and in fact will not, obviate the need for 

such a study. The final rule should explicitly include an FAA commitment to fund, and 

to convene the relevant stakeholders to oversee such a study. Most important, each of the 

stakeholders should have a seat at the table to ensure the study's legitimacy and to ensure 

that it genuinely and transparently addresses the problem of helicopter overflight noise in 

eastern Long Island in a comprehensive maimer' 

Specific Comments on NPRM 

1. FAA must conduct required the environmental review of the proposal. 

The NPRM erroneously states that the proposed NYNSR is categorically exempt fi:om 

preparation of environmental documentation under the National Environmental Policy 

Act and FAA regulations implementing that statute, FAA Order 1050.IE (2004). While 

the NPRM correctly quotes to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 

and paragraph 312f of Order 1050.IE, neither that provision of the FAA Order nor the 

bases upon which the NPRM was issued support the agency's conclusion that a 

categorical exclusion is appropriate in this instance. 

First, and most important, the NPRM fi-ankly discloses that the entire purpose of the 

proposed action is to "reduce noise impact on nearby communities." While the Town has 

' The study committee, in which all relevant stakeholders have a meaningful role and a seat at the table in 

directing the study, has precedent in FAA-fiinded Part 150 Noise Compatibility Programs. Under Part 150, 

the FAA directs that airport proprietors convene stakeholder groups to help direct and scrutinize study work 

product. Since most noise-related flight patterns in the country are the result of Part 150-initiated efforts, 

these types of stakeholder-driven studies are standard practice. We urge the FAA to adapt the principles 

underlying the Part 150 process to this effort. 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Page 4 

no squabble with that purpose, the agency provides no factual, technical or analytic basis 

for concluding that the proposed NYNSR actually fulfills that purpose. Without even the 

most rudimentary noise analysis, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the agency to 

conclude that the NYNSR in fact achieves the purpose of the proposal to reduce noise 

impact on nearby communities. In fact, the study that the Town is requesting would be 

designed for precisely that purpose: to ensure that all hehcopter routes serving the east 

end of Long Island optimize the FAA's and the communities' noise abatement objectives. 

Without data demonstrating that the FAA has struck the appropriate balance, the public 

does not have the confidence knowing that the NYNSR (or alternatives or additional 

routes) will reduce hehcopter noise. 

The statement in the NPRM that the proposal is categorically excluded fi-om NEPA 

review because it does not significantly affect the human environment contradicts the 

agency intent in proposing the NYNSR. If the action does not significantly affect the 

human environment, then there would be no basis upon which the agency could conclude 

that it will "reduce noise impact on nearby commimities" as asserted in the NPRM. 

Second, the agency mischaracterizes the legal standard for categorical exclusions imder 

both NEPA and Order 1050. IE. The FAA Order, Coimcil on Environmental Quality 

regulations and all relevant case law provide for categorical exclusions for actions that 

will not have a "significant effect on the human environment." See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4; 

Order 1050. IE f 303a. The FAA's hst of categorical exclusions similarly uses the term 

"significantly affecting the human environment." Order 1050.1E \ 303a. The NPRM, 

however, misquotes this authority when concluding that the NYNSR is categorically 

excluded firom NEPA review because "implementation of the proposed rule is not 

expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the human environment." (emphasis 

added). There is no precedent for the agency declining to conduct environmental review 

on the basis of the absence of significant adverse impacts. In fact, it appears that the very 

purpose of the NPRM is to produce significant beneficial impacts on the human 

environment; if that is true, environmental documentation is required to document those 

benefits. 

Finally, the agency has cited the wrong provision of Order 1050. IE to justify its claim of 

categorical exclusion fi-om environmental review. While paragraph 312f of Order 

1050.IE does refer to "regulations," paragraph 311 of that Order is the appropriate 

section for procedural actions such as the NYNSR. For example, paragraph 31 Ih 

categorically excludes "establishment of helicopter routes that channel helicopter activity 

over major thoroughfares." Order 1050.IE ]f 31 Ih. Most importantly, paragraph 31 li 

provides a categorical exclusion for establishment of new or revised air traffic control 

procedures "conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level." That paragraph 

explains that the categorical exclusion only applies when such procedures affect air traffic 

above 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL). There is no exclusion in paragraph 311 that 

could even arguably apply to the NPRM and since that paragraph is the one that 

addresses environmental review of flight pattern actions, the agency cannot reasonably 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Hehcopter Route 

Page 5 

assert that the NPRM is categorically excluded fi-om environmental review. There is 

nothing in FAA Orders or FAA precedent that contemplates a categorical exclusion for 

air traffic actions that (a) establish or revise air traffic procedures for aircraft operations 

below 3,000 feet AGL; or (b) establish or revise air helicopter routes where such routes 

do not follow major thoroughfares.^ 

An unnumbered appendix to Order 1050.IE, entitled "Order 1050.IE 3,000 ft AGL 

Categorical Exclusion Validation Study" provides the technical basis for the agency's 

decision to exclude from environmental review those air traffic procedures affecting only 

aircraft at that level and higher. 

While there does exist a categorical exclusion for publication of existing air traffic 

control procedures that "do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, 

change altitude, or change concentration" of aircraft activity, Order 1050.IE t 311k, that 

provision does not apply here since the existing, voluntary helicopter route was never 

issued as a formal regulation and was never formally established as is proposed in the 

NPRM. See FAA Order 7210.3V § 11-6-1 (2008) (emphasizing that the Hehcopter 

Route Chart program is voluntary). 

Even if the FAA could shoehorn the NPRM into an existing categorical exclusion in 

Chapter 3 of Order 1050. IE, that chapter also defines so-called extraordinary 

circumstances in which normally categorically excluded actions require additional 

environmental analysis. Even if the agency disagrees with the Town's legal analysis of 

the FAA's obUgation to conduct environmental review, the Town urges the FAA to 

exercise its discretion under Order 1050.IE to conduct meaningfiil environmental review. 

One of the bases upon which normally categorically excluded actions must be subjected 

to environmental review is if the action will have an impact on "noise levels on noisesensitive uses." Id. t 304f. It is noteworthy that the Order does not refer to an increase 

in noise levels but merely an "impact," suggesting that either a positive or adverse impact 

on noise levels in noise sensitive areas is an extraordinary circumstance. Given that the 

agency has asserted that the "effect" of the NPRM is to "reduce noise" over residential 

areas of Long Island, there can be no doubt that the NPRM satisfies the provisions of 

paragraph 304f. 

2. FAA should consider a South Shore route as an alternative or 

complement to the New York North Shore Route. 

The implication of the NPRM is that the NYNSR will resolve issues and concerns about 

noise impacts firom helicopter operations over Long Island. It is important that the FAA 

^ As further indication of the inappropriateness of categorically excluding the NPRM from environmental 

review, Order 1050. IE does provide an exclusion for tests of air traffic procedures conducted under 3,000 

feet AGL but only if the test duration does not exceed six months. Id. ^ 311n. The NPRM does not 

propose a test of the NYNSR. 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Page 6 

be clear that both the purpose and effect of the proposed NYNSR would be far more 

modest. 

Because the agency has done no environmental review, and apparently has conducted no 

noise analysis of either the existing conditions or the effect of the propose NYNSR, there 

is no information available about whether the proposal will achieve the FAA's objective 

of addressing helicopter noise concerns in residential areas of Long Island. In particular, 

there is no comparative analysis of the proposed NYNSR with other possible helicopter 

routes or permutations of the proposal. 

We request that, before issuing a final rule, the FAA convene a stakeholders group to 

oversee a thorough noise analysis (in a manner consistent with established FAA 

precedent, using the latest FAA-approved version of the Helicopter Noise Model) of the 

NYNSR along with the following permutations and alternatives: 

1. Atlantic Route. The analysis should compare the relative benefits of the 

NYNSR with a route that would direct helicopter traffic offshore the south 

shore of Long Island (the "Atlantic Route"). The Atlantic Route could 

produce meaningfiil benefits especially for over-land helicopter traffic 

since many of the eastern Long Island origins/destinations for helicopter 

traffic (including FOK, HTO, and MTP) are located closer to an off-shore 

Atlantic Route than to the proposed NYNSR. An Atlantic Route would 

minimize over-land routes and could, therefore, produce greater benefits 

than the NYNSR. The analysis must consider not only the noise impacts 

but, even more important, the mandatory allocation of traffic between a 

NYNSR and Atlantic Route in light of congestion constraints imposed by 

JFK terminal airspace. (The fact that some changes might be necessary 

for traffic within JFK terminal airspace is not a valid basis upon which to 

reject an Atlantic Route; the complexity and consequences of any 

necessary changes should be analyzed and disclosed prior to issuance of a 

final rule.) 

2. Combined Routes. FAA must also conduct analysis that examines a 

balance of traffic between the NYNSR and the Atlantic Route. The 

analysis must include an examination of whether routing aircraft based 

upon their eastern Long Island origin/destination and their New York 

metropolitan area origin/destination would result in a better balance of 

noise impacts. The analysis should propose the optimal balance among 

alternative routes to achieve the FAA's objective of reducing noise 

impacts on noise sensitive uses fi-om helicopter operations. 

3. Over-Land Routes. While the proposed NYNSR has the laudable 

objective of reducing helicopter noise impacts, the agency has failed to 

consider the impacts by helicopters departing or entering the NYNSR. 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Helicopter Route 

Page 7 

These operations would all be conducted over-land. The agency should 

prescribe mandatory routes for transition between the NYNSR (and 

Atlantic Route) and principal origin/destination airports in eastern Long 

Island, including especially FOK, HTO, and MTP. The transition routes 

should be designed to optimize overflight of compatible land uses. 

4. Defined Entry and Exit Points. The noise analysis must examine whether 

defining specific permissible entry and exit waypoints from the NYNSR 

would enhance the noise reduction objectives of the NPRM. The NPRM 

does not state whether pilots will be permitted to exit the NYNSR at any 

point of the operator's choice or whether only defined entry and exit 

points (based upon defined over-land routes) will be permitted. The noise 

analysis should examine the comparative noise impacts of using defined 

entry/exit points versus allowing operator flexibility. 

3. FAA should consider alternative minimum altitudes as a means of 

reducing helicopter noise. 

Had the FAA conducted noise analysis of the proposal, as required by NEPA and FAA 

Order 1050. IE, it would have learned that the altitude of helicopter traffic is a significant 

determinant of noise levels. The agency's proposed NYNSR retains the existing 

voluntary route altitude of 2500 feet AGL. The proposal does not address minimum 

altitudes for helicopters transitioning fi-om the NYNSR to their origin/destination within 

eastern Long Island. Since most of the impact of helicopter operations come from overland routes, it is important for the agency to analyze options for alternative altitudes. In 

particular, the Town recommends that the minimum attitude for helicopters using the 

NYNSR be 3000 feet AGL and that a comparable over-land minimum altitude be 

established until a helicopter reaches the immediate proximity of its destination. 

Without considering flight altitude and profiles, and without data on the effect of altitude 

on noise, the FAA proposal is incomplete and it is unclear whether the proposal achieves 

the objectives of the NPRM. The Town requests that no rule be promulgated until the 

noise impact of alternative altitudes (both within the NYNSR, along a proposed Atlantic 

Route, and along transition routes) has been analyzed and compared. 

4. FAA should mandate waypoints and/or routes for helicopters enroute 

and over land at the eastern end of Long Island. 

The proposed NYNSR would establish a helicopter route with no waypoints and only 

designations at the eastern (Orient Point) and western (WPLYD) terminus of the route. 

In order to be effective at keeping helicopter traffic over non-noise sensitive areas and 

over water, the NPRM should establish waypoints along the entirety of the route. 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore HeUcopter Route 

Pages 

Additionally, as discussed in other contexts above, in order to be effective, the NYNSR 

must include transition routes fi-om the principal airport destinations in eastern Long 

Island. These routes should be defined by precise waypoints as well. Similar waypoints 

should be established for a south shore (Atlantic) route. 

Without waypoints along either the offshore portion of the NYNSR or along transition 

routes over-land, the FAA will have little way to either measure or enforce compliance 

with the NYNSR. Even if hehcopter operators are vigilant in attempting to comply with 

the mandatory route, they will be stymied in their efforts if the rule does not include 

meaningful waypoints. 

Comments proposed by local noise advisory group 

The Town has requested that its Airport Noise Abatement Advisory Committee 

(ANAAC) provide the Town with its feedback and advice. In addition to the comments 

above, the ANAAC offers the following additional comments on the NPRM. 

1. That helicopters arriving/departing East Hampton Airport (HTO) or points east of 

HTO via the North Shore route be required to use Plum Island as a waypoint, to 

proceed over water to the maximum extent possible to HTO and to comply with 

local (HTO) rules concerning flight paths and minimum altitudes when operating 

within 5 miles of HTO. 

2. That the FAA establish similar mandatory flight rules for the south shore route 

and establish procedures to equalize the volume of helicopter traffic using the 

north and south shore routes. Local management (HTO) of hehcopter traffic 

should be enhanced. 

3. That the minimum altitude be increased to 2500 feet to 3000 feet. 

The Airport Noise Abatement Advisory Committee also strongly recommends that the 

FAA to work establish procedures, in cooperation with local airports, to monitor and 

enforce compliance with the proposed rule(s) once finalized. 

Conclusions 

The Town of East Hampton congratulates the FAA on its efforts to address noise impacts 

from helicopter operations over eastern Long Island. The Town also applauds Senator 

Schumer, Congressman Bishop and former Senator Clinton for their perseverance in 

working with the FAA to focus on this long-festering issue. The Town fiirther 

appreciates that the NPRM represents the first step, not the end of a public dialogue on 

how best to reduce the impacts of helicopter overflights and noise in the east end of Long 

Island. In particular, the Town recognizes that it is highly unusual for the FAA to be 

willing to promulgate a Part 93 rule to address helicopter flight patterns and appreciates 
Comments of the Town of East Hampton 

FAA Docket 2010-0302 

Proposed New York North Shore Hehcopter Route 

Page 9 

the agency's demonstrated willingness to impose mandatory routes for helicopter traffic 

in the region. 

Notwithstanding the Town's recognition of the importance of this first step, the Town 

believes that the NPRM can be significantly improved in several material respects. 

Since the agency has failed to conduct either noise analysis or an alternatives analysis 

(both of which are required under applicable FAA regulations), neither the Town nor the 

public can determine whether the NYNSR will achieve the agency's laudable objectives. 

The Town requests that the agency prepare a meaningful environmental impact analysis 

before reissuing the NPRM. 

Finally, the Town requests that the FAA convene and fimd a stakeholder group to oversee 

a study designed to optimize the noise reduction objectives that are set forth in the 

preamble to the NPRM. That study should be consistent with the scope set forth in 

Section 818 of the pending FAA Reauthorization legislation. In order to ensure the 

credibility of such a study, the study must include the formal participation of a 

stakeholder group, consisting of the municipalities and airport proprietors in eastern Long 

Island and operator groups who are most potentially affected by proposed helicopter 

routes. 

For further information about this submission, please contact Jim Brundige, Airport 

Manager, East Hampton Airport. 

Respectfiilly Submitted, 

June 25, 2010 

TowT Supervisor 

Town of East Hampton