BY PERSONAL DELIVERY 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

May 20,2015 

Attention: FAA Part 16 (Airport Proceedings Docket) 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

c NBRR 

RECEIVED 

MAY 2 0 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Re: Part 16 Complaint: National Business Aviation Association, Inc., 

Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Connecticut); PlaneSense, Inc.; Fly the 

Whale, Inc.; Eastern Air Express, Inc.; FL Aviation Corporation; 

Tuckaire, Inc.; Autonomic Controls, Inc.; Shoreline Aviation, Inc. 

(Massachusetts); Wes Rae Contracting Corporation; Eagle Air, Inc.; 

and JET AS, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, New York 

Dear Sirs: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23, the National Business Aviation Association, Inc. 

("NBAA"), on behalf of its members generally and as the specifically authorized 

representative of eleven members - Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Connecticut); PlaneSense, 

Inc.; Fly the Whale, Inc.; Eastern Air Express, Inc.; FL Aviation Corporation; Tuckaire, 

Inc.; Autonomic Controls, Inc.; Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Massachusetts); Wes Rae 

Contracting Corporation; Eagle Air, Inc.; and JETAS, Inc. - (together, "Complainants") 

files this complaint against the Town of East Hampton, New York ("the Town" or "East 

Hampton"), as the owner, operator and sponsor of East Hampton Airport ("the Airport" 

or "HTO"). All communications with respect to this complaint should be addressed to: 

Steve Brown, Chief Operating Officer, NBAA, 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 1100, 

Washington, DC 20005, sbrown@nbaa.org, (202) 783-9000. 

This complaint centers on resolutions adopted by the Town on April 16, 2015, 

which amend § 75.38 of the Town Code to impose: (1) an 11pm-7am curfew on 

operations at HTO, (2) an extended 8pm-9am curfew for aircraft deemed to be "noisy,"1 

and (3) a prohibition on aircraft deemed to be "noisy" from conducting more than one 

take-off and one landing per week during the summer. See Exhibits 1-3. There are 

multiple reasons why the adoption of these resolutions by the Town is impermissible. 2 

1 Generally defined by the Town as an aircraft for which the FAA has published an Effective Perceived 

Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater. The Town has published what 

purports to be a list of such aircraft, see Exhibit 4, but it does not appear to be accurate. For example, it 

includes the Bombardier Challenger 604, even though according to FAA Advisory Circular 36-1H 

(November 15, 2011) that aircraft has an AP level of 90.3 EPNdB. The Town's list also includes a 

multitude of aircraft highly unlikely to operate at HTO, ranging from the Airbus A380 to the Sud Caravelle. 

2 Although not within the scope of 14 C.F.R. Part 16, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, 49 

U.S.C § 47521 et seq. ("ANCA"), also appears to prohibit the Town's actions, absent the completion by 

the Town of a study pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 161, because the "noisy" aircraft include Stage 2 and 

(continued .. .) 

SAFETY & AIRCRAFT OPERA Tl ONS LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY ADVOCACV tJETWOAI<ING & COMMERCE EOUCA TlON & CAREER DEVElOPMENT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 

National Business Aviation Association 1200 G Street NW, Suite 1'r1JO Washington. DC 20005 (202) 783-9000 www.nbaa.org 
This complaint specifically requests a ruling by the FAA that the extended curfew and 

take-off/landing restrictions are forbidden based on the prohibitions on "exclusive rights" 

that appear in 49 U.S.C. § 401 03(e) and grant assurance #23, 3 as well as that the 

Town's declared intent to fund its defense of the restrictions with airport revenue is 

incompatible with grant assurance #25. 

Complainants 

1. NBAA is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of 

Columbia and headquartered at 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 

20005. NBAA represents over 10,000 member companies which own and operate over 

11,000 general aviation aircraft to facilitate the conduct of their businesses or which are 

otherwise involved with business aviation. NBAA members comprise a substantial 

segment of the general aviation community. NBAA acts as a spokesperson for 

business aviation before government agencies and the U.S. Congress and, in selected 

cases of importance, such as this one, represents its members' interests by initiating or 

participating in court actions and/or proceedings before regulatory agencies such as the 

FAA. 

2. At least three NBAA members utilize the Airport as their home base. 

Additionally, NBAA members throughout the nation operate aircraft to and from the 

Airport and would be directly and substantially affected by the resolutions adopted by 

the Town. NBAA represents those affected members in this matter, both in general and 

specifically on behalf of those members named below, consistent with FAA 

precedent. See, e.g., Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. City of Santa Monica, no. 16-03-

11, Director's Determination, at 1 n.1 and 22 (January 3, 2004) (permitting NBAA to 

serve as the representative of its members in a Part 16 proceeding). 

Stage 3 aircraft (and for the latter, affirmative FAA approval of the study also is required). While a letter 

apparently was sent by the FAA to a then-member of Congress in 2012 informally asserting that ANCA 

was not applicable to HTO after December 31, 2014, that letter is of no general authority - and the 

asserted position is clearly contrary to City of Naples Airport Authority v. FAA, 409 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 

2005), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that § 

47524(c)'s "requirement of FAA approval is not tied to grants; grants or not, no airport operator can 

impose a Stage 3 restriction unless the FAA gives its approval." ld. at 434. 

Likewise, although this complaint invokes only the statutory and grant-based prohibitions on exclusive 

rights, as a general principle of law, any local restrictions- even if not preempted by the comprehensive 

federal regulatory scheme for aviation- must be reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory, or they 

will be vulnerable to a court challenge. See, e.g., British Airways Board v. Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey. 558 F.2d 75, 84 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, as modified, 564 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1977) and Aviation 

Noise Abatement Policy 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 43802, 43816 (July 14, 2000). 

3 Although an April 2005 settlement agreement between the FAA and a third party purports to waive the 

enforcement of certain grant assurances at HTO (including #22(a) and #22(h)) after December 31, 2014, 

see Exhibit 4, the Town most recently accepted an Airport Improvement Program ("AlP") grant in 2001, 

which means that the remainder of its grant-based obligations should be effective through 2021. 

Moreover, the prohibition on exclusive rights remains effective so long as an airport continues to be 

operated. See. e.g., FAA Order 5190.6B, § 4.6(h)(1). 

2 
3. Shoreline Aviation, Inc., (Connecticut) a member of NBAA, is a charter 

management company based in Bridgeport, Connecticut that conducted approximately 

700 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" a.t HTO, such 

as the Gulfstream G-Ill. 

4. PlaneSense, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a fractional aircraft company based in 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire that conducted approximately 250 operations at HTO in 

2014. 

5. Fly the Whale, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company 

based in White Plains, New York, with one or more aircraft based at HTO, that 

conducted approximately 200 operations at HTO in 2014. 

6. Eastern Air Express, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management 

company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that conducted approximately 40 operations 

at HTO in 2014. 

7. FL Aviation Corporation, a member of NBAA, is a charter management company 

based in Morristown, New Jersey that conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 

2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Dassault Falcon 

2000, the Gulfstream G-IV, and the Gulfstream G-V. 

8. Tuckaire, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in 

Trenton, New Jersey that conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 2014, and 

operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Bombardier Challenger 601. 

9. Autonomic Controls, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a technology company based in 

Armonk, New York that conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 2014. 

10. Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Massachusetts), a member of NBAA, is a charter 

management company based in Marshfield, Massachusetts that conducted 

approximately 25 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" 

at HTO, such as the Cessna Citation 560. 

11. Wes Rae Contracting Corporation, a member of NBAA, is a construction 

company based in Hauppauge, New York, with one or more aircraft based at HTO, that 

conducted approximately 25 operations at HTO in 2014. 

12. Eagle Air, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in 

Danbury Connecticut that conducted approximately 15 operations at HTO in 2014. 

13. JETAS, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in 

White Plains, New York that conducted approximately 10 operations at HTO in 2014, 

and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Dassault Falcon 2000. 

14. As Airport tenants, users, and/or a representative of tenants and users, each of 

the Complainants is "directly and substantially affected" by the Town's actions, as that 

phrase is used in 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(a). 

3 
Subject of the Complaint 

15. The Airport is owned, operated, and sponsored by the Town. 

16. The pertinent names and addresses for the responsible persons at the Town of 

East Hampton are: Larry Cantwell, Supervisor, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 

19937, lcantwell@ehamptonny.gov; Elizabeth Vail, Town Attorney, 159 Pantigo Road, 

East Hampton, NY 19937, evail@ehamptonny.gov; Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, 

200 Daniels Hole Rd, Wainscott, NY 11975, jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov. 

17. As set forth below in greater detail, the newly-adopted restrictions. on "noisy" 

aircraft violate the prohibitions on "exclusive rights" that appear in 49 U.S.C. § 401 03(e) 

and grant assurance #23 (which is based on 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(4)). 

18. In addition, the recent declaration by the Town that it will use airport revenue to 

fund its legal defense to challenges to the resolutions implicates its compliance with 

grant assurance #25 (which is based on 49 U.S.C. § 47107(b)). 

Facts 

19. The Airport is a public-use facility at which approximately 100 general aviation 

aircraft are based and approximately 25,000 operations are conducted each year. The 

Airport has received substantial federal funding, including $1.4 million in federal AlP 

assistance in FY2001 for terminal apron rehabilitation. 

20. In April 2005, the FAA entered into a settlement agreement to conclude litigation 

with a third party that was related to the Airport; the agreement purported to waive 

enforcement of certain grant assurances after December 31, 2014. See Exhibit 5. 

21. The settlement agreement did not purport to modify any of the Town's other 

grant-based obligations, or statutory obligations. The FAA generally understands that 

most grant-based obligations endure for 20 years; moreover, the prohibitions on 

exclusive rights remain effective so long as an airport continues to be operated. See, 

~.FAA Order 5190.68, § 4.6(h)(1). 

22. For at least several years, the Town has been planning to impose restrictions on 

certain types of aeronautical activities at HTO, predicated on an assumption (which 

Complainants believe is in error) that such restrictions would be allowable subsequent 

to December 31, 2014, based on the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Exhibit 6. 

23. On March 12, 2015, the Town held a hearing at which it solicited public 

comments on four proposals (which had been publicly announced on February 10, 

2015) to restrict certain types of aeronautical activities at HTO. 

24. On April 16, 2015, the Town adopted resolutions implementing three of those 

proposals. In particular, they impose: (1) an 11 pm-7am curfew on operations at HTO, 

(2) an extended 8pm-9am curfew for aircraft deemed to be "noisy," and (3) a prohibition 

4 
on aircraft deemed to be "noisy" from conducting more than one take-off and one 

landing per week during the summer. See Exhibits 1-3. 

25. The Complainants understand that the resolutions became effective upon their 

filing with the New York Secretary of State, which occurred on April29, 2015. 

26. The Town adopted an additional resolution on May 7, 2015 which clarified the 

penalties and effective date of the restrictions, but which did not affect their substance. 

See Exhibit 7. This resolution does not appear to yet have been filed with the New York 

Secretary of State. 

27. On May 18, 2015, a hearing was held on pending litigation in federal court that 

also challenges the validity of the restrictions, but on different grounds.4 Judge Joanna 

Seybert indicated that she would rule on a pending injunction request by June 8, 2015, 

and in the meantime the Town agreed not to enforce the restrictions. 

Efforts at Pre-Complaint Resolution 

28. NBAA and other parties actively have opposed the Town's proposals .. For 

example, on February 2, 2015, NBAA - along with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association ("AOPA") and the National Air Transportation Association ("NATA")- sent a 

letter to the Town, expressing concerns about anticipated restrictions and seeking a 

meeting with Town representatives. See Exhibit 8. 

29. Representatives of NBAA, AOPA, and NATA subsequently met with Town 

Supervisor Larry Cantwell and Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez on February 27, 

2015, to discuss their concerns and ask that the Town refrain from imposing restrictions. 

30. In advance of the Town's hearing on March 12,2015, NBAA, AOPA, and NATA 

sent a further letter to the Town, expressing additional concerns about the proposed 

restrictions, as well as revenue diversion. See Exhibit 9. 

31. A representative of NBAA also appeared at the hearing, and was one of many 

speakers to express concern about the proposed restrictions. See 

http://75.1tveh.org:2000/cablecastapi/embed?show id=2325 (including the remarks of 

Jeff Gilley, NBAA's Director of Airports and Ground Infrastructure, at 3:12-3:14). 

32. The FAA has recognized that similarly-positioned complainants are not required 

by 14 C.F.R. § 16.21(b) to engage in further one-sided efforts to resolve a dispute with 

officials who have "for all practical purposes enacted the ordinance" that the 

complainants had opposed. See Bombardier, no. 16-03-11, at 23. 

4 See E.D.N.Y. no. 15-CV-2246. An additional case also seeks to resolve the validity of the waivers that 

appeared in the April2005 settlement agreement See E.D.N.Y. no. 15-CV-0441. 

5 
Applicable Law- Exclusive Rights 

33. The FAA long has understood the prohibition on economic discrimination that 

appears in grant assurance #22(a) to be the "mirror image" of the prohibition on 

exclusive rights that appears in 49 U.S.C. § 401 03(e) and grant assurance #23. 

34. As a result, if an airport imposes restrictions on one type of aeronautical activity 

that it does not impose on others, those discriminatory rules amount to the constructive 

grant of an impermissible exclusive right to the unrestricted operations. 

35. That is exactly what has occurred in this case; i.e., non-" noisy" aircraft5 now have 

an exclusive right to conduct operations between 7-9am and 8-11pm, and to conduct 

more than one take-off and landing per week between May and September. 

36. This is not a novel issue. For decades, FAA guidance has recognized that the 

concepts of economic discrimination and exclusive rights overlap. See. e.g.,.Exclusive 

Rights at Airports, 30 Fed. Reg. 13661, 13662 (October 27, 1965) ("[t]he application of 

any unreasonable requirement or standard ... or any requirement or standard which is 

applied in a discriminatory manner, shall be considered to be a constructive grant of an 

exclusive right" ). 

37. The principle that economic discrimination and exclusive rights are mirror images 

recently was restated in the FAA's revised airport compliance handbook: 

An exclusive right may be conferred either by express agreement, by 

imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements or by another 

means. Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding 

others from enjoying or exercising a similar right or right, would be an 

exclusive right. 

Airport Compliance Manual, FAA Order 5190.68, § 8.2 (September 30, 2009). 

38. Likewise, in prior Part 16 proceedings the FAA specifically has found that the 

imposition of restrictions on a specific type of aeronautical activities amounts to an 

exclusive right and is prohibited. See. e.g., Bardin v. County of Sacramento. California, 

no. 16-00-11, Director's Determination, at 12 (August 9, 2001) ("the County's [ultralight] 

ban creates an unlawful exclusive right at Franklin Field. As a result of the ban, other 

aeronautical uses have been granted a special privilege in the use of the public use 

airport facilities while ultralight activities do not enjoy those rights").6 

5 Non-noisy aircraft may include aircraft with an AP level of 91 EPNdB or greater but that are not within 

the scope of 14 C.F.R. Part 36 or for which there otherwise is no "published" data. 

6 See also Self Serve Pumps, Inc. v. Chicago Executive Airport, no. 16-07-02, Director's Determination, at 

19, n.16 (March 17, 2008) ("the Director declines to re-analyze the allegation of a constructive granting of 

an exclusive right after having analyzed the allegation under its component parts of unreasonable denial 

of access and/or unjust economic discrimination, since the analysis is identical"). 

6 
39. The FAA recently confirmed that its standards have not changed. See Hinshaw 

v. State of Hawaii, no, 16-12-04, Director's Preliminary Determination, at 46 (August 18, 

2014) ("[t]he Respondent has granted an exclusive right for one aeronautical activity 

(commercial helicopter operations) to take place in the absence of State-approved 

operating rules and standards, while denying another aeronautical activity (commercial 

skydiving operations) the same privilege").7 

40. Accordingly, the terms of the recently passed resolutions that establish a 

selective, extended curfew for and limit operations by "noisy" aircraft on their face are 

incompatible with the Town's federal obligation not to grant exclusive rights at HTO, 

which - irrespective of the FAA's purported waiver of the enforcement of other grant 

assurances - unquestionably remains in effect so long as HTO is operated as an airport 

(which is an obligation that itself endures until at least 2021). 

Applicable Law- Revenue Diversion 

41. Additionally, in response to pending litigation in federal court, the Town and its 

counsel have asserted that as a consequence they are being required "to spend scarce 

airport funds to defend these restrictions." See Exhibit 10. 

42. FAA guidance establishes that airport revenue may be used for "attorney fees to 

the extent these fees are for services in support of airport capital or operating costs that 

are otherwise allowable." FAA Order 5190.6B, §15.9(d) (emphasis added). East 

Hampton has asserted that it will use airport revenue to support an unallowable purpose 

- i.e., imposing restrictions at HTO that are contrary to federal law. 

43. Likewise, if the Town were to use airport revenue to procure legal services to 

respond to this complaint, it would be using airport revenue for an unallowable purpose. 

44. The Town is obligated to draw upon general funds and its tax base- and not 

airport funds- if it is to pursue an anti-airport agenda. Federal law should not and does 

not allow the costs of restricting access to an airport to be borne by airport users. See, 

g,g,_, In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City of Chicago, 

Illinois, docket no. 16-04-09, Notice of Investigation, at 2 (October 1, 2004) ("costs 

related to the deactivation of Meigs as an airport . . . were not incurred for airport 

purposes and are not capital or operating costs of an airport"). 8 

7 See also 41 North 73 West Inc. v. County of Westchester, New York, no. 16-07-13, Final Agency 

Decision, at 37 (September 18, 2009), aff'd 408 Fed. Appx. 393 (2d Cir. 2010) ("FAA has taken the 

position that the application of any unreasonable requirement or any standard that is applied in an 

unjustly discriminatory manner may constitute the constructive grant of an exclusive right"). 

8 See also Boca Airport,.lnc. d/b/a Boca AViation v. Boca Raton Airport Authority. docket no. 16-00-10, 

Director's Determination, at 42 (April 26, 2001) ("[a] payment of airport revenue to a private firm can be 

considered unlawful revenue diversion if it is not for an airport purpose (i.e. for general economic 

development)"). The FAA subsequently took the same position in its Final Agency Decision and Order 

(March 20, 2003). An unrelated section of that decision was affirmed at 389 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

7 
45. Accordingly, the FAA should both investigate the Town's current compliance with 

the prohibition on revenue diversion that is embodied in grant assurance #25 -given its 

public declaration that in pending litigation it will use airport revenue for an unallowable 

purpose- and further warn the Town of its obligation not to engage in revenue diversion 

in connection with the pending litigation, this complaint, or any other matter that does 

not advance the interests of the Airport. 9 

Relief Sought 

46. As an initial matter, Complainants request that the FAA on an expedited basis 

enter an interim cease-and-desist order to maintain the status quo at the Airport. The 

restrictions that the Town has adopted, by its own calculations, would prohibit a 

significant share of all airport operations (up to 23% of operations at HTO according to a 

study performed for the Town, see Exhibit 11), and are likely to permanently cripple the 

airport - i.e., by driving existing tenants out of business and undercutting the airport 

budget. Absent such an order, there is a significant risk that an ultimate ruling by the 

FAA in favor of the Complainants regarding exclusive rights would be a pyrrhic victory. 

Although a federal injunction of the enforcement of the restrictions has been requested 

in litigation, the matter has not yet been ruled upon and it is premised on different 

grounds than those raised in this complaint. 

47. Complainants further request that the FAA issue an order: finding that the 

resolutions adopted by the Town are incompatible with the exclusive rights-related 

statute and grant assurance (#23) applicable to the Town; finding that the Town's 

proposal to use airport revenue to support the resolutions in legal proceedings is 

incompatible with the grant assurance (#25) applicable to the Town; and directing the 

Town to take corrective action subject to the suspension of further AlP grants and other 

appropriate enforcement measures; and granting all other relief that is necessary and 

proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Steve Brown 

Chief Operating Officer, NBAA 

9 lt is well established that the FAA, in a Part 16 proceeding, may address not only current compliance 

issues but current practices that are likely to result in future violations. See, e.g., JetAway Aviation LLC 

v. Board of Commissioners Montrose County, Colorado, docket no. 16-06-01, Director's Determination, 

at 34 (November 6, 2006); Town of Fairview, Texas v. City of McKinney, Texas, docket no. 16-99-04, 

Director's Determination, at 17 (July 26, 2000). 

8 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day I caused the foregoing complaint to be served 

on the following persons at the following addresses by first class mail, postage prepaid, 

with courtesy copies by electronic mail: 

• Larry Cantwell, Supervisor, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 19937, 

lcahtwell@ehamptonny.gov; 

• Elizabeth Vail, Town Attorney, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 19937, 

evail@ehamptonny.gov; and 

• Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, 200 Daniels Hole Rd, Wainscott, NY 11975, 

jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov. 

Dated this 20th day of May 2015. 

Steve Brown 

9 
Section 16.13(e) and Section 16.211bl Certification 

I hereby certify, pursuant to 14 C.F.R § 16.13(e), that this filing is based 

on my knowledge and information and belief; that this filing is consistent with 14 

C.F.R. Part 16; that the Complaint is warranted by existing law; thatthis filing is 

not imposed for any improper purpose such as to harass or delay. I also herby 

certify, pursuant to 14 C.F.R § 16.21 (b), that substantial and reasonable good 

faith efforts were made to resolve the disputed matter informally prior to this filing 

(as discussed in the. body thereof) and there appears to be no reasonable 

prospect for timely resolution of the dispute. 

Dated this 20th day of May 2015. 

Steve Brown 

10 
East Hampton Town Board 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

ADOPTED 

RESOLUTION 2015-411 

Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM 

Department: Town Attorney 

Category: Local Law 

Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail 

Initiator: Elizabeth Vail 

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez 

DOC ID: 15229 B 

Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town 

Code Regulating Nighttime Operation of Aircraft at East 

Hampton Airport 

WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned 

for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and 

WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and 

enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean 

beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and 

WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island 

to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful 

atmosphere they provide; and 

WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique 

natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East 

End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and 

WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet 

pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect 

the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and 

WHEREAS, in the busy season of May - September, residents and visitors spend a 

significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining 

with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the 

area; and 

WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents 

are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those 

disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to 

live and visit; and 

WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the 

lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, 

taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in 

terms of the duration of the noise events themselves; and 

WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor 

activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire of the East End; and 

WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall 

operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone 

increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and 

WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it 

interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

outdoor activities; and 

WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there 

are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy 

outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet of this rural area; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for 

many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to 

reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened 

lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address 

the problem of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic 

vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses 

of urban life in favor of tranquility and rural quiet; and 

WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, 

and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and 

WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed 

their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board 

meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and 

WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the 

recent Town election; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of 

neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the 

effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the 

Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have 

adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a 

comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and 

WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, 

depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the 

East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many of the noisy aircraft flights; and 

WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary 

measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order 

to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, 

to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of 

aircraft noise; and 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic 

Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of 

voluntary measures; and 

WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of 

the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was 

initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a 

mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory 

transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East 

Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary 

measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the 

level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise 

through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks 

for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, 

but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of 

community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton 

Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained 

legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no 

longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and 

WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at 

East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 

2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including 

Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National 

Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air 

Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to 

discuss their respective concerns; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public 

an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential 

solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, 

all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance 

resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful 

measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by 

Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the 

disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those 

disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport 

before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; 

and 

WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, 

after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from 

operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does 

not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft 

noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and 

WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses 

of the noise and related complaints, including the following: 

• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution 

Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, 

(2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the 

INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 

operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day 

total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to 

calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each 

property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise 

standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each 

parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type 

of operation; and 

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; 

and 

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of 

November 1, 2013 - October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise 

complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different 

aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) 

analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day 

of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and 

season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to 

identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop 

a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; 

(5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that 

each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified 

and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the 

most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether 

the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise 

provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and 

predicting human response; and 

WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored 

measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and 

debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 

4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase of the recent noise analyses; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton 

Airport on February 10, 2015; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the 

following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to 

regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early 

morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; 

and (4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at 

Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and 

comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and 

WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world 

effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on 

real world effects; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to 

assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and 

WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon 

the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and 

WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other 

interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures 

in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the 

Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the 

public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a 

local law to implement a nighttime curfew at the East Hampton Airport is in the best 

interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following reasons: 

• Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and 

early morning hours; and 

Updated: 4/17/201511:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

• Professional studies confirm that nighttime aircraft noise is highly disturbing, that it 

can disrupt normal sleep patterns, and that it has a particularly serious adverse 

effect on people's lives; and 

• The Town's voluntary curfew has not proven to be sufficiently effective at reducing 

nighttime noise from aircraft and nighttime operations still generate a significant 

number of complaints; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form 

which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a 

significant negative impact upon the environment; and now, therefore be it 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant 

to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and 

RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: 

LOCAL LAW NO. 3 OF 2015 

INTRODUCTORY NO. 2 OF 2015 

A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East 

Hampton Town Code to read as follows: 

BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows: 

SECTION 1. Legislative Intent 

In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a 

significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport. By its extensive 

complaints to the Town Board and to other governmental entities, the public has made 

clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the negative impact that this aircraft noise has made 

to the health and welfare of its citizenry, to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the 

peace, quiet, and repose of the region. Aircraft noise has substantially diminished the quiet 

enjoyment of homes and properties and compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, 

beaches, fields, and preserved lands that define our community and sense of place. 

East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied 

to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world 

renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic 

hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the 

Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a 

total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 

acres since 1998. 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the 

natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in 

its vision statement the goal to 

"[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the 

environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of 

human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, 

dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, 

the night sky, noise and energy consumption." 

The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 

Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: 

"The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated 

for the benefit of the Town and its residents. The airport 

continues to be classified as a General Aviation Airport under 

federal criteria. Its primary role is the accommodation of light 

aircraft traffic. Aircraft operating at greater weights will be 

accommodated on condition [sic] without unjust discrimination. 

The airport is also managed with the objective of providing 

emergency access and facilitation of all other public and 

community responsibilities. The size and operation of the 

airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and 

Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise 

disturbance and adverse environmental impacts." 

"Control of noise and adverse environmental impacts at the 

airport is consistent with current Town goals for improved 

quality of life and land and water conservation. These goals 

recognize that protecting the environment is essential for 

improving the Town's seasonal and year round economy. These 

controls are achieved through reasonable, non arbitrary and 

non discriminatory management practices. These may limit the 

maximum size of aircraft to be accommodated, regulate 

excessive peak demand during the summer season and 

otherwise adjust use patterns such as for helicopter access to 

minimize community disturbances." 

In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive 

analysis of the citizenry's complaints, and of the aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation 

consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness 

of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, 

the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters 

and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level 

of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the 

incongruity of jet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural 

environment. 

Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most 

significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours. Myriad professional studies 

from airports throughout the world have confirmed what the residents of East Hampton 

know from personal experience: nighttime aircraft noise is more disturbing, more annoying, 

can disrupt normal sleep patterns, and, generally, has a particularly seriously adverse effect 

on people's lives. 

In its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has 

developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise 

that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the 

community the benefits of aviation. 

The Town Board recognizes the value of the East Hampton Airport to the community and 

does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's 

objectives. 

To that end, the Town Board recognizes the importance of addressing nighttime noise 

problems, during sleeping hours when there is a heightened expectation of quiet, by 

imposing a curfew for nighttime hours. The legislation is intended to restrict aircraft 

operations during the most sensitive times of the day. 

By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial 

nighttime noise relief for residents and visitors, maintain the intended and traditional use of 

the East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and continue sufficient air traffic to 

maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. 

The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft 

noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an 

economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. 

The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any 

federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or 

private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to 

such operations at all times without restriction or charge. 

These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the 

operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to 

determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board 

will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to 

determine the success and/or failure of the use restrictions and whether they function the 

way they were intended or need to be adjusted. 

SECTION 2. Amendment 

The Code of the Town of East Hampton is hereby amended by adding the following new 

section to Chapter 75 (Airport). 

§ 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

A. Definitions. 

(1) - (2) - Reserved 

(3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, of whatever type, with a distinct 

registration number ("N number" if such registration is issued by the United States 

Government). 

(4)- (5)- Reserved 

(6) "Use of the Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one 

departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any 

aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. 

B. Nighttime Operations. Use ofthe Airport is prohibited between the hours of 11:00 

pm and 7:00am (local time). 

C. [Reserved] 

D. [Reserved] 

E. Exemptions. The restrictions of this section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft 

operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private 

aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, 

police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or 

medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport 

Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and 

reason for the operation. 

§ 75-39 PENAL TIES: 

A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 

shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction 

upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed 

misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors 

shall apply to such violations. 

B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be 

punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other 

entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: 

(1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$1,000. 

(2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$4,000. 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$10,000. 

(4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of 

the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not 

more than two years. 

C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall 

constitute a separate offense. 

D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements 

of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs 

incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual 

costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in 

violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this 

chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. 

E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or 

proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel 

compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, 

organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the 

Individual Aircraft. 

(1) If a finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or 

any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty 

to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the 

discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that 

the defendants or any one of them individually caused, permitted or allowed the 

violation. 

SECTION 3. AuthoritY 

The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding 

use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and 

(12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton 

Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

SECTION 4. Severability 

If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged 

invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent 

jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, 

whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall 

not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 

Exhibit 1 
Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. 

SECTION 5. Effective Date 

This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. 

Dated: April 16, 2015 

BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK 

·~-----------------~·----------·------·· 

I RESULT: 

I MOVER: 

I SE .. CONDER: L AYES: 

ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] 

Kathee BurkecGonzalez, Councilwoman 

Peter VanScoyoc, Councilman 

Burke-Gonzalez, Van Scoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 

Exhibit 1 
East Hampton Town Board 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

ADOPTED 

RESOLUTION 2015-412 

Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM 

Department: Town Attorney 

Category: Local Law 

Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail 

Initiator: Elizabeth Vail 

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez 

DOC ID: 15230 B 

Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the 

Town Code Regulating Evening, Nighttime and Early Morning 

Operation of Noisy Aircraft at East Hampton Airport 

WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned 

for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and 

WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and 

enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean 

beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and 

WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island 

to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful 

atmosphere they provide; and 

WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique 

natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East 

End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and 

WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet 

pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect 

the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and 

WHEREAS, in the busy season of May - September, residents and visitors spend a 

significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining 

with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the 

area; and 

WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents 

are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those 

disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to 

live and visit; and 

WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the 

lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, 

taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in 

terms of the duration of the noise events themselves; and 

WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor 

activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire of the East End; and 

WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall 

operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone 

increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and 

WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it 

interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

outdoor activities; and 

WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there 

are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy 

outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet of this rural area; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for 

many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to 

reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened 

lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address 

the problem of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic 

vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses 

of urban life in favor of tranquility and rural quiet; and 

WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, 

and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and 

WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed 

their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board 

meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and 

WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the 

recent Town election; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of 

neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the 

effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the 

Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have 

adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a 

comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and 

WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, 

depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the 

East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many of the noisy aircraft flights; and 

WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary 

measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order 

to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, 

to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of 

aircraft noise; and 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic 

Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of 

voluntary measures; and 

WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of 

the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was 

initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a 

mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory 

transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East 

Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary 

measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the 

level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise 

through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks 

for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, 

but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of 

community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton 

Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained 

legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no 

longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and 

WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at 

East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 

2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including 

Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National 

Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air 

Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to 

discuss their respective concerns; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public 

an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential 

solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, 

all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance 

resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful 

measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by 

Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the 

disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those 

disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport 

before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; 

and 

WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, 

after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from 

operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does 

not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft 

noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and 

WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses 

of the noise and related complaints, including the following: 

• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution 

Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, 

(2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the 

INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 

operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day 

total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to 

calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each 

property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise 

standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each 

parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type 

of operation; and 

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; 

and 

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of 

November 1, 2013 - October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise 

complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different 

aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) 

analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day 

of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and 

season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to 

identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop 

a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; 

(5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that 

each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified 

and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the 

most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether 

the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise 

provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and 

predicting human response; and 

WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 

Exhibi12 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored 

measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and 

debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 

4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase of the recent noise analyses; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton 

Airport on February 10, 2015; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the 

following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to 

regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early 

morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; 

and ( 4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at 

Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and 

comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and 

WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world 

effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on 

real world effects; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to 

assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and 

WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon 

the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and 

WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other 

interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures 

in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the 

Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the 

public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a 

local law to regulate evening, nighttime and early morning operation of noisy aircraft at the 

East Hampton Airport is in the best interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following 

reasons: 

• Of the 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, the latest noise analysis 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters and jets, the 

noisiest types of aircraft; and 

• Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and 

early morning hours; and 

• During those hours, noisy aircraft are the most annoying; and 

• While all aircraft operations during the nighttime hours are disturbing, noisy aircraft 

can be especially intrusive during the "shoulder" times of the evening and early 

morning hours, which are times of the day when residents and visitors typically 

engage in outdoor activities and are therefore are highly sensitive to disruption by 

loud aircraft; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form 

which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a 

significant negative impact upon the environment; and now, therefore be it 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant 

to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and 

RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: 

LOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF 2015 

INTRODUCTORY NO. 3 OF 2015 

A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East 

Hampton Town Code to read as follows: 

BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows: 

SECTION 1. Legislative Intent 

In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a 

significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport, chiefly helicopters, 

jets, and seaplanes. By its extensive complaints to the Town Board and to other 

governmental entities, the public has made clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the 

negative impact that this aircraft noise has made to the health and welfare of its citizenry, 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the peace, quiet, and repose of the region. Aircraft 

noise has substantially diminished the quiet enjoyment of homes and properties and 

compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, beaches, fields, and preserved lands that 

define our community and sense of place. 

East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied 

to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world 

renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic 

hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the 

Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a 

total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 

acres since 1998. 

The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the 

natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in 

its vision statement the goal to 

"[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the 

environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of 

human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, 

dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, 

the night sky, noise and energy consumption." 

The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 

Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: 

"The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated 

for the benefit of the Town and its residents. The airport 

continues to be classified as a General Aviation Airport under 

federal criteria. Its primary role is the accommodation of light 

aircraft traffic. Aircraft operating at greater weights will be 

accommodated on condition [sic] without unjust discrimination. 

The airport is also managed with the objective of providing 

emergency access and facilitation of all other public and 

community responsibilities. The size and operation of the 

airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and 

Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise 

disturbance and adverse environmental impacts." 

"Control of noise and adverse environmental impacts at the 

airport is consistent with current Town goals for improved 

quality of life and land and water conservation. These goals 

recognize that protecting the environment is essential for 

improving the Town's seasonal and year round economy. These 

controls are achieved through reasonable, non arbitrary and 

non discriminatory management practices. These may limit the 

maximum size of aircraft to be accommodated, regulate 

excessive peak demand during the summer season and 

otherwise adjust use patterns such as for helicopter access to 

minimize community disturbances." 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive 

analysis of the citizenry's complaints, and of the aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation 

consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness 

of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, 

the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters 

and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level 

of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the 

incongruity of jet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural 

environment. 

Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many 

residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most 

significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours. During those hours, noisy 

aircraft are the most disturbing. While all aircraft operations during the nighttime hours are 

disturbing, noisy aircraft can be especially intrusive during the 'shoulder' times of the 

evening and early morning hours, when people are doing daily activities around their 

homes, and there is a need to address the particular impacts of these noisy aircraft during 

these times of the day. 

In its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has 

developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise 

that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the 

community the benefits of aviation. 

The Town Board recognizes the value of the East Hampton Airport to the community and 

does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's 

objectives. 

To that end, the Town Board recognizes the importance of addressing the impacts of noisy 

aircraft operations during non-working hours of evenings and early mornings when there is 

a heightened expectation of quiet, by imposing shorter operating hours for these noisy 

types of aircraft. The legislation is intended to recognize that noisier aircraft need to be 

subject to greater restrictions because of the seriousness of their noise contribution to the 

community disturbance - that is, each aircraft's individual noise generation and the 

frequency and timing of its airport landings and takeoffs. 

By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial 

evening and morning noise relief for residents and visitors, maintain the intended and 

traditional use of the East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and continue sufficient 

air traffic to maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. 

The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft 

noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an 

economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. 

The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any 

federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or 

private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to 

Updated: 4/17/201511:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

such operations at all times without restriction or charge. 

These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the 

operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to 

determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board 

will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to 

determine the success and/or failure of the use restrictions and whether they function the 

way they were intended or need to be adjusted. 

SECTION 2. Amendment 

The Code of the Town of East Hampton is hereby amended by adding the following new 

section to Chapter 75 (Airport). 

§ 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: 

A. Definitions. 

(1) - (2) - Reserved 

(3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, of whatever type, with a distinct 

registration number (''N number" if such registration is issued by the United States 

Government). 

(4) "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified as a Noisy 

Aircraft type pursuant to this Section. 

(a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a 

current list of aircraft based upon the noise characteristics published by the 

Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that agency), 

the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any 

airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise 

in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater 

(b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to 

subsection (a) on the basis of the Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the 

owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise classification of 

such Individual Aircraft determined by the sound levels on the basis of the 

EPNdB level that is published in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for 

such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 36.1581(a). To obtain a noise 

classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner of such aircraft shall provide 

the Airport Director with a true copy of the relevant pages from such manual 

showing the noise level data. In the event of a conflict between the Town's 

list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification based on the 

data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, the 

data in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall prevail. 

Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft has provided the Airport Director with 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, and 

the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereof, the Airport 

Director shall keep such data on file so that the owner need not resubmit the 

data for each Use of the Airport, and compliance by such Individual Aircraft 

with this Section shall be determined based on such data. 

(5) (Reserved) 

(6) "Use of the Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one 

departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any 

aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. 

B. [Reserved] 

C. Noisy Aircraft Operations. Use of the Airport by Noisy Aircraft is prohibited as 

follows: 

(1) Between the hours of 8:00pm and 9:00am (local time). 

D. [Reserved] 

E. Exemptions. The restrictions of this section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft 

operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private 

aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, 

police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or 

medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport 

Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and 

reason for the operation. 

§ 75-39 PENAL TIES: 

A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 

shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction 

upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed 

misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors 

shall apply to such violations. 

B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be 

punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other 

entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: 

(1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$1,000. 

(2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$4,000. 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$10,000. 

(4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of 

the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not 

more than two years. 

C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall 

constitute a separate offense. 

D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements 

of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs 

incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual 

costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in 

violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this 

chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. 

E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or 

proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel 

compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, 

organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the 

Individual Aircraft. 

(1) If a finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or 

any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty 

to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the 

discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that 

the defendants or any one of them individually caused, permitted or allowed the 

violation. 

SECTION 3. Authority 

The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding 

use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and 

(12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton 

Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

SECTION 4. Severability 

If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged 

invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent 

jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, 

whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall 

not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 

Exhibit 2 
Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. 

SECTION 5. Effective Date 

This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. 

Dated: April 16, 2015 

. 

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] 

MOVER: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman 

SECONDER: Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman 

BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK 

AYES: . Burke-Gonzalez, VanScoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 12 

Exhibit 2 
East Hampton Town Board 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

ADOPTED 

RESOLUTION 2015-413 

Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM 

Department: Town Attorney 

Category: Local Law 

Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail 

Initiator: Elizabeth Vail 

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez 

DOC ID: 15231 B 

Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the 

Town Code Regulating Operation of Noisy Aircraft at East 

Hampton Airport 

WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned 

for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and 

WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and 

enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean 

beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and 

WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island 

to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful 

atmosphere they provide; and 

WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique 

natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East 

End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and 

WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet 

pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect 

the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and 

WHEREAS, in the busy season of May - September, residents and visitors spend a 

significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining 

with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the 

area; and 

WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents 

are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those 

disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to 

live and visit; and 

WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the 

lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, 

taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in 

terms of the duration of the noise events themselves; and 

WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor 

activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire of the East End; and 

WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall 

operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone 

increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and 

WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it 

interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

outdoor activities; and 

WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there 

are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy 

outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet of this rural area; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for 

many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to 

reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened 

lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address 

the problem of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic 

vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses 

of urban life in favor of tranquility and rural quiet; and 

WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, 

and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and 

WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed 

their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board 

meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and 

WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the 

recent Town election; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of 

neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the 

effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the 

Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have 

adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a 

comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and 

WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, 

depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the 

East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many of the noisy aircraft flights; and 

WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary 

measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order 

to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, 

to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of 

aircraft noise; and 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic 

Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of 

voluntary measures; and 

WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of 

the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was 

initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a 

mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory 

transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East 

Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary 

measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the 

level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise 

through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks 

for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, 

but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of 

community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton 

Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained 

legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no 

longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and 

WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at 

East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 

2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including 

Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National 

Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air 

Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to 

discuss their respective concerns; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public 

an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential 

solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, 

all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance 

resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful 

measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by 

Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the 

disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those 

disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport 

before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; 

and 

WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, 

after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from 

operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does 

not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft 

noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and 

WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses 

of the noise and related complaints, including the following: 

• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution 

Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, 

(2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the 

INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 

operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day 

total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to 

calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each 

property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise 

standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each 

parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type 

of operation; and 

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; 

and 

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of 

November 1, 2013 - October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise 

complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different 

aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) 

analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day 

of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and 

season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to 

identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop 

a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; 

(5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that 

each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified 

and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the 

most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether 

the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise 

provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and 

predicting human response; and 

WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored 

measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and 

debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 

4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase of the recent noise analyses; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton 

Airport on February 10, 2015; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the 

following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to 

regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early 

morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; 

and (4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and 

WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at 

Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and 

comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and 

WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise 

problem; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world 

effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on 

real world effects; and 

WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to 

assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and 

WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon 

the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and 

WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other 

interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures 

in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and 

WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the 

Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the 

public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a 

local law to limit the number of operations of noisy aircraft at the East Hampton Airport is in 

the best interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following reasons: 

• Noise from the noisiest aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport is particularly 

disruptive of the peace and tranquility in and around the Town because their high 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

noise levels contrast with the general peace and quiet of the East End to a much 

greater degree than quieter aircraft; and 

• The relatively high volume of operations by the noisiest aircraft has caused 

widespread community disturbance due to the particularly disruptive effect of those 

aircraft; and 

• The proposed restriction would affect 3,443, or 13.4 percent of the total operations 

but would address roughly 37.6 of the reported complaints; and 

• Limiting the noisiest aircraft is the most important during the summer season when 

residents and visitors have a heightened expectation that they can enjoy the outdoor 

environment in peace; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and 

WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form 

which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a 

significant negative impact upon the environment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant 

to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and 

RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: 

LOCAL LAW NO. 5 OF 2015 

INTRODUCTORY NO. 5 OF 2015 

A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East 

Hampton Town Code to read as follows: 

BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows: 

SECTION 1. Legislative Intent. 

In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a 

significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport, chiefly helicopters, 

jets, and seaplanes. By its extensive complaints to the Town Board and to other 

governmental entities, the public has made clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the 

negative impact that this aircraft noise has made to the health and welfare of its citizenry, 

to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the peace, quiet, and repose of the region. Aircraft 

noise has substantially diminished the quiet enjoyment of homes and properties and 

compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, beaches, fields, and preserved lands that 

define our community and sense of place. 

East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world 

renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic 

hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the 

Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a 

total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 

acres since 1998. 

The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the 

natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in 

its vision statement the goal to 

"[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the 

environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of 

human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, 

dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, 

the night sky, noise and energy consumption." 

The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 

Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: 

"The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated 

for the benefit of the Town and its residents. The airport 

continues to be classified as a General Aviation Airport under 

federal criteria. Its primary role is the accommodation of light 

aircraft traffic. Aircraft operating at greater weights will be 

accommodated on condition [sic] without unjust discrimination. 

The airport is also managed with the objective of providing 

emergency access and facilitation of all other public and 

community responsibilities. The size and operation of the 

airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and 

Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise 

disturbance and adverse environmental impacts." 

"Control of noise and adverse environmental impacts at the 

airport is consistent with current Town goals for improved 

quality of life and land and water conservation. These goals 

recognize that protecting the environment is essential for 

improving the Town's seasonal and year round economy. These 

controls are achieved through reasonable, non arbitrary and 

non discriminatory management practices. These may limit the 

maximum size of aircraft to be accommodated, regulate 

excessive peak demand during the summer season and 

otherwise adjust use patterns such as for helicopter access to 

minimize community disturbances." 

In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive 

analysis of the citizenry's complaints, and of the aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation 

consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness 

of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, 

the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level 

of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the 

incongruity of jet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural 

environment. 

Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many 

residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by the noisiest aircraft is most 

significant when aircraft operations are most frequent. The Town examined how best to 

limit the constant onslaught of air traffic and has determined that an overall limit on 

operations by the noisiest aircraft is essential to the quality of life to which residents and 

visitors are entitled. 

In its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy 

responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has 

developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise 

that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the 

community the benefits of aviation. 

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized in the National Helicopter 

case -- that residents have a justified, heightened expectation of quiet during non-working 

hours, evenings, nights, and weekends -- both year-round and seasonal residents of East 

Hampton and the East End have a justified, heightened expectation of quiet, yet suffer 

greater exposure to disturbance from aircraft noise, during the very periods when the East 

End is sought as a destination for repose and relief from urban ills. That is the reason why 

the huge influx of seasonal residents and visitors come to East Hampton. It is the reason 

why year-round residents struggle to stay in East Hampton despite the difficulty of earning 

a living in a limited economy on the end of a long, narrow peninsula on the tip of a long 

island. Peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, a beautiful and unique natural 

environment, these are the primary social and economic goods that East Hampton and the 

East End as a whole have to offer. 

The Town Board recognizes the value of the East Hampton Airport to the community and 

does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's 

objectives. 

To that end, the Town Board recognizes that limiting the volume and frequency of airport 

use by noisy aircraft types during the summer season is essential to restoring the peace and 

quiet that East Hampton residents and visitors have come to expect in this community. The 

legislation is intended to restrict aircraft according to the seriousness of their noise 

contribution to the community disturbance -that is, each aircraft's individual noise 

generation and the frequency and timing of its airport landings and takeoffs. The proposed 

restrictions are seasonally based, imposing greater limits during the period May 1 to 

September 30 each year when residents and visitors have a heightened expectation that 

they can enjoy our magnificent outdoor environment in peace. 

By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial noise 

relief for residents and visitors during the summertime, provide an incentive for airport 

users with noisy types of aircraft to transition to quieter types of aircraft, maintain the 

intended and traditional use of the East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

continue sufficient air traffic to maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. 

The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft 

noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an 

economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. 

The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any 

federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or 

private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to 

such operations at all times without restriction or charge. 

These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the 

operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to 

determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board 

will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to 

determine the success and/or failure of the use restrictions and whether they function the 

way they were intended or need to be adjusted. 

SECTION 2. Amendment 

Section 75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, of the Code of the Town of East Hampton is hereby 

amended by adding the following provisions: 

CHAPTER 75. AIRPORT. 

§ 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: 

A. Definitions. 

(1) "Calendar Week" shall mean the period beginning at 12:00:00 am on Sunday 

and ending at 11:59:59 pm on the following Saturday. 

(2) - Reserved 

(3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, of whatever type, with a distinct 

registration number ("N number" if such registration is issued by the United States 

Government). 

(4) "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified as a Noisy 

Aircraft type pursuant to this Section. 

(a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a 

current list of aircraft based upon the noise characteristics published by the 

Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that agency), 

the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any 

airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise 

in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater 

(b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

subsection (a) on the basis of the Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the 

owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise classification of 

such Individual Aircraft determined by the sound levels on the basis of the 

EPNdB level that is published in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for 

such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 36.1581(a). To obtain a noise 

classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner of such airc raft shall 

provide the Airport Director with a true copy of the relevant pages from such 

manual showing the noise level data. In the event of a conflict between the 

Town's list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification based on 

the data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, 

the data in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall 

prevail. Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft has provided the Airport 

Director with such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight 

manual, and the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereof, the 

Airport Director shall keep such data on file so that the owner need not 

resubmit the data for each Use of the Airport, and compliance by such 

Individual Aircraft with this Section shall be determined based on such data. 

(6) "Use of the Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one 

departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any 

aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. 

B. [Reserved] 

C. Noisy Aircraft Operations. Use of the Airport by Noisy Aircraft is prohibited as 

follows: 

(1) [Reserved] 

(2) More than two Uses of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft during a Calendar 

Week, or portion of a Calendar Week, that falls within the Season. 

D. [Reserved] 

E. Exemptions. The restrictions of this section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft 

operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private 

aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, 

police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or 

medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport 

Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and 

reason for the operation. 

§ 75-39 PENAL TIES: 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 

shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction 

upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed 

misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors 

shall apply to such violations. 

B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be 

punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other 

entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: (1) For the first 

violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $1,000. 

(2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$4,000. 

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$10,000. 

(4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of 

the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not 

more than two years. 

C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall 

constitute a separate offense. 

D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements 

of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs 

incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual 

costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in 

violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this 

chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. 

E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or 

proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel 

compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 any person, 

organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the 

Individual Aircraft. 

(1) If a finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or 

any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty 

to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the 

discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that 

the defendants or any one of them individually caused, permitted or allowed the 

violation. 

SECTION 3. Authority 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 

Exhibit 3 
Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015 

The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding 

use ofthe East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(ll) and 

(12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton 

Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

SECTION 4. Severability. 

If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged 

invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent 

jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, 

whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall 

not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or 

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. 

SECTION S. Effective Date. 

This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. 

Dated: April 16, 2015 

RESULT: 

MOVER: 

SECONDER: 

AYES: 

NAYS: 

ADOPTED [4 TO 1] 

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman 

Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman 

BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK 

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Peter VanSCoyoc, Sylvia Overby, Larry Cantwell 

Fred Overton 

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 12 

Exhibit 3 
ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

A109 

AW119 

A124 

A139 

A189 

A306 

A30B 

A310 

A318 

A319 

A320 

A321 

A332 

A333 

A342 

A343 

A345 

A346 

A359 

A388 

A3ST 

A400 

A748 

AN26 

AN72 

List of Noisy Aircraft Types 

The following list addresses the requirement of Proposed Town Code §75-

38 A.(4)(a) for the Airport Director to maintain on the Town website a 

current list of "noisy aircraft" defined to be "any airplane or rotorcraft for 

which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) 

approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater." 1 The list is presented in terms of 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aircraft type codes and an 

accompanying commonplace aircraft type description. 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

ivQ't_~~;:_~-~bli{6~#-:~~t~to(:~h~'ded-~~~~rqfftXP:~~:}:~t:i~~'e:r~_~~g~---;oi1~}s~:tey~~~~-~h:~t-~~t~,n_ij:'p.S':P$~:t~~:·9i_;p_gf_N~13: :· , : Fh'-:-~hol~ :·:·:i:~~!i~I~-?~l:~-~-z~~~ft from_ ;,p~VWe~~--Pvi>lfsfl,~d:_~-9:~i?:.~!e~e!~{et,;YA(Y£1)9,)J(!~'-~tt,.:~_~Cfi~~~-'?tiCJ~s ~(~ ,~;~ ·: ___ --3 

~~f!.~i:lrJ9_R_~-~~fP'~n-~s!:;f]1il.~if!J.~,V-~p~rcm~o.:~-~i~~~$f,:~t5:-?·~;-:_f~~:~h-~~0:-!YJifs;;p/r,;cPI~:P-~r~t~i!f.Yst'R:'-9vfde_:t,pe_,·;::-:··: 

Afi"p_oitp!rrctpr_;yvi_th npis~;l~:~el iQf?rrp_d~~P.~:lfWJ:lit~-~:;n..cj_igtd_~~'-~ird~f~~~,8Yl.~t:ni_qiJ_6al;·if!h,e,p~~-er_~:elieves_:tfje 

1 ---: -: :-:---<':-:- - : ·: :-~ :::'a_ir,~r,(;ff+.iiJ}lU.estip_n_,~~(J_UfrJ-IJot;Q_e:Ct~~~i/i~_d_Ds::O_o,~sy:: :, :--.:-->'_:.: ___ ,<:-- --.;:_,-- · :·:c _-_ 

Agusta A-109 

Agusta AW119 MKII 

Antonov An-124 

Agusta AB-139 

AgustaWestland AW189 

Airbus A300B4-600/ A300C4-600 

Airbus A300B2/A300B4-100/A300B4-200 

Airbus A310-200/A310-300 

Airbus A318-100 

Airbus A319-100 

Airbus A320-100/ A320-200/ A320-200neo 

Airbus A321-100/ A321-200/ A321-200neo 

Airbus A330-200 

Airbus A330-300 

Airbus A340-200 

Airbus A340-300 

Airbus A340-500 

Airbus A340-600 

Airbus A350-900 

Airbus A380-800 

Airbus A300-600ST Beluga 

Airbus A400M 

BAe HS748 

Antonov An-26 

Antonov An-72, An-74 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List o(Noisv Aircraft Types Page2 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

AS3B 

AS 50 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

~ot~;~:_:Ptib1i~~~d,dCJ;~~J ~-:Sha'ti~~--:qipcrO[-{:~YP~-~:i~f:hJ_~e_/a;Q9e~;.v:z~~js-~)~~fif-tii:ar:ei_~~(Jq·-~2f?~_S-:th_f-:9,~_;:o:Ef:~aB_ 

--,:'J~!es.~ptd:" _.rhe~~:-m~f{:eS-te~~l,~!rOrf.f?Ylf~B!~.:~tt~li~~e~r:nel~~--~gv~l~fO!::Y~~YinifJlr:S'--afr£ebfiqUrgl!~~-~:f~,~P:!- :.: l:i_-<_:_,·aJ,ff~rlCJ~_:~~-JA,~rPlOn_t~rfn_a~if!J.'!r!!:qR,~c{i,tf._r:g<~~;P:~J~;:_~-tC):-,!:~:t:~~9~,:~y~~fi~;~i[;~(q!t:?~~-~Ff-if:!Y~_i,:ft~v,;~l!/h,~­ ~-Aimc>rtPir~.~w:Vl!ltb-noi~_e;level;ifforfl;-qt{P_of~qrr,5h_e;i':'9i'!lr!Q~!;~irfr:qfr:s,t'l~~t~(1PLJ.aJ,-_ifti;J~-oWner-Qlt/ie~f!s:tiJ~-,-

:.:.:·,:> - ::·:-_-:: airf-i.t?[t_:j(l;:gpe~tiofr§_~(fQ/lj:fJqi;.:~e::cla~~ifi~YI;:_iJ~-;'!qifY::; · \:: __ :-- · 

Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-532 Cougar Mk 2 

Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-350 Astar/Ecureuii/Squirrel 

AS55 Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-355 Ecureuii2/Twin5tar/Twin5quirrel 

AS65 Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-365/565 Dauphin 2, Panther 

~STRi· ·•••···•••••·• '"•••••i····················. >··············•·.••.· Gulfstrearrr(i100/IAI,~l.~~.l>.~tr~···· ................................ < ; ····•••··.•.·•·•········· 

AT42 ATR 42 

AT43 ATR 42 

AT44 ATR 42 

AT45 ATR42 

AT72 ATR 72 

AT73 ATR-72-210 

AT75 ATR 72 

ATP BAe ATP 

B105 Eurocopter (MBB) B0-105DB 

B222 Bell222 

B230 Bell230 

B412 Bell412 

B427 Bell427 

B429 Bell429 

B430 Bell430 

B461 BAe 146-100 

B462 BAe 146-200 

B463 BAe 146-300 

B701 Boeing 707-100 

B703 Boeing 707-300 

B712 Boeing 717-200 

B720 Boeing 720-100 

B721 Boeing 727-100 

B722 Boeing 727-200 

B732 Boeing 737-200 

B733 Boeing 737-300 

B734 Boeing 737-400 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List of Noisy Aircraft Types Page 3 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

~ N_~t~;:,::~P!Jbtisbe1 :lam 1~~;-sb~_ci-'!(f :o,Iccrri#:*)tpes~:i1'si~de ,_[anp~~;-ci/~-;ols·e __ :':eYr!s:_~~.h't;~xt~nii_:ri~ro~s;;tl}e~1.h;E_~NiJ_B, ;.:if!f_~~hqlf!._;;'th_e~~-,,~'!gef_:(~su_Iti~?J!(:rrjYUipi~p~R){fh:~#;?·oi:~~-~~tVe#f~~;~qr~ifJ~:9iif'?ftj_C?flJit.{~:rqfiih~'{~~:g,,_ :.:.· -.- : , ::~ifflf':'!Dk_PQIN,:~iplCIP-~~~ :~_~firiJ,4':1 ?i)~r:Q~in{!::f~f!/flh t~;-;&:;~_J-,- ~:-~fffi~: :tY:e~~~>~~r~r~t,t::BVrQ __ ~r~ m~st:~tA~~9:f?- __ th_~;-: :·- . ::Ai,r~q/J-.P{C~~i~'::_V{i[~·-'W;se_}t?:~-el_ir'[~r;mcjti~?Ji~rn::~hJJQ_tpyt~kiJ:_q?rf'r:ag}.'f/f~~-~-:_';!?n_~~~~:-:~~te,teV::~~r;:-~?.~'!e~~s-:t~,~ ?' '_:_ ·::.: /:.:;;>;-:-:~-: > .,-:-; .;;;>: :' .<-" '~--: ·-':> : :-::_:aJrc(dft_:·ln:rJ,u,e?tiPh_§h_ql./fd,-_n_qt:;J~,:~Jq~sif_i~!f.::~-s-::r#;!sy: -:: -;_:<:.:;;-.::,, :::--,;:::~_>:,-.. :,:;::_< -::;:,:"<> ~:- ·. -:-:· , __ 

sns . · ·••••·••······· · ~. < .·. · .·) ~<>~i~\i'f~z~sgo· • · · · · · ···· ···••·••••··•···••···· 

B736 Boeing 737-600 

B737 Boeing 737-700 

B738 Boeing 737-800/P-8 Poseidon 

B739 Boeing 737-900/737-900ER 

B741 Boeing 747-100 

B742 Boeing 747-200 

B743 Boeing 747-300 

B744 Boeing 747-400 

B748 Boeing 747-8 

B74R Boeing 747SR 

B74S Boeing 747SP/SUD 

B752 Boeing 757-200 

B753 Boeing 757-300 

B762 Boeing 767-200 

B763 Boeing 767-300 

B764 Boeing 767-400 

B772 Boeing 777-200 

B773 Boeing 777-300 

B77L Boeing 777-200LR/777-F 

B788 Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner 

B789 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner 

BAll British Aerospace (BAe)- BAC One-Eleven 

BE40 Raytheon Hawker 400 (Beech jet 400) 

BER2 Beriev Be-200ES 

BK17 Eurocopter (MBB/Kawasaki) BK-117 

C130 Lockheed C-130A/B/E/F/H/K/M/N/P/O/R/T/U/L-100-30 Hercules 

C25A Cessna 525 CitationJet 

C27J ALENIA C27J Spartan 

C295 EADS CASA CN-295/T-21 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List ofNoisvAircraft Tvpes Paqe4 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

C525 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

;N~te,::::~up!ls~ed_a~~~~O(~~~~~-ci,~iti;r?ff::tyP~~:/P;ciUQe,,[~hg_¢s_:rit:d0:1~_~;1e,Y~.ti.itf1~-~-:~~e~~--6fr<?§s_:tF~_:_9,_1.:·a,j,EP;~dE3 .. · th_f:~!fh_P.~d:;:_:Th.:e_S~..,t~f;g~7-:':_~~u.ltt;rPf[l::rt:U~i;pl~:gllhl~~--eif,:~-pi~~,}~\~~.'$'f¢r:v~-'Y:~n9::aj,~~i:~ft8~nt;g~~qtl~-?!f._:/~;;€i; · __ ._q;Jtefi_n9p_o~~fR--'(Jn~~::-'!].§,xirn--¥frJ.:-?P-~-r~ti!~~;~~;~b-_f~,:-'_~ff~i:·:,_·tp~-:tb:~~~,_.fY~~~L:-*!;-.C!q~:~~~-~r~:__rii~§~Jfr9PitJ~-:-'f~-~:-.. : t~irp:or_(bi(g_Ci~r,-~,~tl~_n:g_i~e--!~--~~l_fnf9(Ii]f!t!?hfr_Qp':th,~;i~~fvl~i!Cl;:c!,fr{rPfi}S.~igh_t:~q~~-q(if;Jh_e·-~9,~rie?r:;~e_li~v~~-Jh~_ · -- ;.: <-:- · · · · ,- ·· ·:atrcrWi:J.n_:g:lfe~~~p(J.shpfiir:tA9f#-'e}:Jcj~?ifiid:q_~;Q~:fs_y:;:·:{· · - · · 

Cessna 525 CitationJet 

··<· ......... . 

C56X Cessna 560XL Citation Excel 

CL2P Bombardier CL-215 

CONC Aerospatiale I BAe Concorde 101 

CVLT Convair 580/640 

D328 Dornier 328 (Turboprop) 

DC10 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-10-10/DC-10-30/DC-10-40/MD-10-10/MD-10-30F 

DC3 Boeing (Douglas) DC-3/Super DC-3S (C-117D) 

DC85 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-50 

DC86 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-60 

DC87 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-70 

DC91 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-14/DC-9-15 

DC92 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-21 

DC93 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-30 

DC94 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-41 

DC95 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-51 

DH8B 

DH8C 

DH8D 

DHC7 

E120 

E135 

E145 

E170 

Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 200 

Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 300 

Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 400 

De Havilland DHC-7 Dash 7 

Embraer 120 

Embraer Legacy Executive (EMB-135BJ)/RJ135ER (EMB-135ER)/RJ135LR (EMB135LR)/RJ140LR (EMB-135KL) 

Embraer RJ145EP (EMB-145EP)/RJ145LI (EMB-145LI)/RJ145LR (EMB-145LR)/RJ145LU (EMB145LU)/RJ145MP (EMB-145MP)/RJ145RS (EMB-145RS)/RJ145SA (EMB-145SA) 

Embraer 170 (ERJ 170-100}/175 (ERJ 170-200) 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List of Noisy Aircraft Types PageS 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

E190 

EC25 

EC35 

ECSS 

EC75 

EHlO 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

~;·.rydt~:·;,_:~~bliS~~q,_4q_ta.f~:r:;s~~:de4_ ~i~~~~~,t{p~~--;hC:i~&~;rpnge;':~r~oi:j:~-~~:yff¥:~ti?:t!;~~t~~5J;a-s/Qis-_th,r:ei.::o;tB~d8';·:; 

·, :t~(:~$h,.qlg.:: .!~-~~~-ran,ge,~,;~~~~:~qr?fr! .. rft~ltir;!e, I?:uR)i~fW:r!- ~--?tf-~, t~ie.!~!~ry.qtYif1~-;~fr~tqft_:C.?2liflum{iP~!f: '(~:.'~;-~. · · 

; ~if{~(lnil .. Pp_~etpl~~-~s~: .. r:r:~~!'!'!J:'!J -_~P,~~9tip_g ;~~~~h-~; ~f!Jf,}::: _fe(ih~_s,i:tYf::s~:~lr~r~J:-:?-:~~e_fs_ ;~-~~t ~rQ~~~~:~~e;_ ::·~i_ipo[f_p;r~ctPt'~itQ_,_~.o!~fi?:-/~;'!~!:I~!~;matl()b_fr:9irf::~ry~:ilJ:~!vfcJ~_~J;qlr,~~1~t':f-_~;~_ht:h,-in:Y~J~;_if_;th.:~-p.W~~~oif)~f;e,_ve~·fh_e<:· -. ;>:;:··· __ :: :-. . -:<>: · __ -;_l}ifC,~qft)n_.·Qu_e$!iP~:_S~(j~f'?J;rj__gf:;b~;:C{CJ¥iff€d:~,S_p(?iS}I;;,;;:i;''-·' . .. -

Embraer 190LR (ERJ 190-100LR)/(ERJ 190-200) 

Eurocopter EC-225 

Eurocopter EC-135 

Eurocopter EC-155 

Eurocopter EC-175 

Agusta EH-101 

EN28 Enstrom 280/F28 

I exytl•· > ...•.. · .. > ....•.•... · MbH~Iic~ptgrsiiVJI)QtlQE~plbr¢h< \> ................. ·>·······.·············· .....•.....•..•.... 

F100 Fokker 100 (F28 Mk0100) 

F27 Fokker F27 Friendship 

F28 Fokker F28-1000 Fellowship/F28-2000/F28-3000 /F28-4000 

F2TH Dassault Falcon 2000 

FSO Fokker 50 (F27 MkOSO) 

F900 Dassault Falcon 900/900B/900C/900DX/900EX/900LX 

FA10 Dassault Falcon 10/100 

FA20 Dassault Falcon 20/200 

FASO Dassault Falcon 50/SOEX 

FA7X Dassault Falcon 7X 

G150 Gulfstream G150 (IAI Gulfstream 150) 

GLF2 

GLF3 

GLF4 

H25A 

H25B 

H25C 

HA4T 

IL62 

IL76 

IL86 

Gulfstream GII/GIIB/GII-SP 

Gulfstream Gill 

Gulfstream G300 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G350 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G400 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G450 

(Gulfstream GIV-X)/GIV /GIV-SP 

British Aerospace (BAe)- BAe HS 125- 100/BAe HS 125- 200/BAe HS 125- 300/BAe HS 125-

400/BAe HS 125- 600 

British Aerospace (BAe)- BAe HS 125- 700/Raytheon Hawker 800 (BAe HS 125- 800)/850XP 

Raytheon Hawker 1000 (BAe HS 125- 1000) 

Hawker 4000 

Ilyushin 11-62 

Ilyushin 11-76/11-78 

Ilyushin 11-86 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List of Noisy Aircraft Types Page 6 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

:-':No,i:e:~- ;·:-~~:?liSti~g: :a~t#f~r ~fJiJ:~eci :q;,~i:G[t_--tYp-:es·:ii:~l~d_"e:;ta,t}~~f-:9YC~f~;e:lfY:~!~-t~--~:f:~ite_n,# ~~i-~?:?if~.~-~9 j ~-~~~R~~~:<', ~:t_~r;~shpld:::_-- !h~s-rr:eng~~_:r~_$}jl~ [r:P?J. :'JlU,f~ipfe,P~ __ fJI!?.hf_~rfo!~~)-~.v~~ff~(: ,~_OfY{iw_ .~!rttaft:~o_U!!g~-W~i?~~-:f ~-,:~:;, ;·> :~ 

'·,;::;:_,_:_~i!f7~;fl~: -P,e·r'-~r~lq~tS:_ ,O?.axirl)ug1-_.0f~rdt~TJil_:r':-~-i~~:~~/~~tc_:J :';:-.~~r::tR~$-~:f>!P:-~S)p_l~~r,d(t- ·o_~~~':YJ:fl{~t;frpVi~~}~.~ ·-;:· __ · :-)Jrpp_r;t::btre.ct()~_ J!t!/th- n,oJ~e;te~~l,;f_n[o,_"T!9-tion, fr~_rO_:·~~t -{h(Ji_~uj_4_of .;:-{ffrOf;~'~~light:ih~RH(d~-,- i{ih-_e_.OWht:r--b.~li~~~f_:the; .. - .. · · : · ,.'-_:::-> -__ ::-.:::··· .- : __ :_:'-'afrc_rd[t)nHIJ.e'syg_h:~t!ciY(~:~pi);_~_:,{l,f!~ifiei(~_s__ir_~iiv:;- : · " - · · · -· 

IL96 Ilyushin 11-96 

KA27 Kamov Ka-32 

L101 Lockheed L-1011-385-1-14 TriStar 100/L-1011-385-3 TriStar 500 

L188 Lockheed L-188 Electra 

L29B Lockheed L-1329 JetStar 731/L-1329 JetStar II 

-•~t4:LO. 'i- : ' < , •.. , •. ;_, •.•• , •• __ ••-·,···•-•• < .••..• ,.-••. -.\_·.,i . ~-~t-l<i1'<-l:_.'•'••• i? 'i . <);., ••• _., ....... -, •••• -_._,, •• -_-.••••.•• _,_•·•''•_ •. ,. i 

U23 Bombardier Learjet 23 

U24 Bombardier Learjet 24 

U25 Bombardier Learjet 25/29 

U28 Bombardier Learjet 28 

U31 Bombardier Learjet 31 

U35 Bombardier Learjet 35/36 

U45 Bombardier Learjet 40/45 

• • W?S <·-••,••·--,•--·· .,,•-•'••·•••·••••<} >.•'•.•--•· •--•·-•·•'•·•··•- <. s~IT\~~r<Ji~l't:eari~fssi >•,••·-·· < .••• ,.,.. > ._ ••. ,.-,.-•• ,- ., •• -. • ••. -_,-_.,_,, \•··•• 

MOll Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-11 

MD81 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-81 (DC-9-81) 

MD82 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-82 (DC-9-82) 

MD83 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-83 (DC-9-83) 

MD87 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-87 (DC-9-87) 

MD88 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-88 (DC-9-88) 

MD90 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-90-30 

f\lloBb · '' .• --.-•. ···-····•··•·••"••···•••·-•··-··-'·-•··-··''•• ------•·-· .-._.-... --•·-• · IVIHsubi~hi t\11U-30q l?i~niolld ~-•-•--••···.••.••··• .••• ,_·••••--··•-- \ <·--.•,·•-•···-·••• (···-·. 

PRMl Beechcraft Premier I (Raytheon 390) 

RJlH Avro 146-RJlOO 

RJ70 Avro 146-RJ70 

RJ85 Avro 146-RJ85 

S210 Aerospatiale (Sud) SE210 Caravelle 

S76 Sikorsky S-76 

S92 Sikorsky S-92 

SllRl. ._ .•.•• s":br"'linet.40A .(f\ockweii.NA-265;.glA)/~O-(Rqc.:k_;,ell,iN,t\- 265,60}/fis'(Rockwell NA-265-6~) 

-· · •.. ·-•••••••• -•·•--•··,.·-._ .:.· .•.• - •.. -. _; .••. _ >.· · · ~abreliner/N rthArueri_<;ah 'f,3_9.A ·•·•-· •••. • -•- .•. ·_· .. ,·_ -·······-••· ··-. _ ••. ···········-· .x .-·· 

SBR2 Sabreliner 75A (Rockwell NA-265-80) 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
List of Noisy Aircraft Tvoes Page 7 

ICAO 

Aircraft 

Type 

Code 

Commonplace Aircraft Description 

~6:t~:;:-:P~bJi~~-e<I:O_a'tQ:f?_;,-sh~~edbirtwf;:t)iP_~s;Jq·cJ4~:~:ra!lp~f-,Pi~~~$~;i~~~~$-:_rhc1~-:e_x~~-JJit..d~(D~!;:~~he:9~-:;e_~~iV~B:;: f~t~sh:9~~---~,_th.e!>~;rC1Qf!.f_~'[~s,~,JtJr;o~_,'!'_~-l_tipJe,:~~H~/{~_h~_<j_.f1fi$~:.;'-e_~e,I;J,q~-~-~-r!)i~_g;f;t~fE~g~F_P?f{~t!-'9~{~?s4~:~i;::'·,.:_­ ;-'-::;iJif!er{q~_:Pp.w~rpi9Dt~;:rpg_~ifflf!·(l)-:f?P~f~-tJog-:-~~~~?:~~i~_~t~_:J:::;f9.f;tr~f-f'tifpe$;_/~Jf~[PJ{-~-Wf;l~_J:~_:'TH$J.'f!f0}/)1~/h~-;:: ---~~~P~it-Piriict~fJJtith_:oCJi$_~_1e_~~~-!p[~iirJp __ ~ippifr,<J,m-_th,~.'-~~il~yid,y~l:;tri[Emft)fJ!f6~-:rf'fiP~:ah:4 th~·:q·V:,ned?_eliqyej·_tn:~: -- . -- -' - - - - H~,~~aft,~~:H~~s-~;gry.-~~P:~tif;TJC?:tp-e,:9;9-~;fi~4;~~:1r!J~A:-': - - - ' 

SH33 Shorts 330/360 

•. SH~6 •··•i. .i ... • .. •.·.························.•.·.······ .i<}.···••···· . ''·'~ . • n }i < ?> • i 

SU95 Sukhoi SSJ 100-95 

T134 Tupolev- Tu-134 

T154 Tupolev- Tu-154 

T204 Tupolev- Tu-204/Tu-214 

VF14 VFW-Fokker 614 

W3 PZL W-3 Sokol 

WW24 IAI 1124 Westwind 

YK40 Yakovlev Yak-40 

YK42 Yakovlev Yak-142/Yak-42 

FOOTNOTE 

1 Proposed Town Code§ 75-38 A. (4) states: "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified 

as a Noisy Aircraft type pursuant to this Section. 

(a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a current list of aircraft based upon the 

noise characteristics published by the Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that 

agency), the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any airplane or rotorcraft 

for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or 

greater 

(b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to subsection (a) on the basis of the 

Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise 

classification of such Individual Aircraft determined by the sound levels on the basis of the EPNdB level that is 

publ"lshed in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

36.1581(a). To obtain a noise classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner of such aircraft shall provide 

the Airport Director with a true copy of the relevant pages from such manual showing the noise level data. In 

the event of a conflict between the Town's list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification 

based on the data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, the data in the 

Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall prevail. Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft 

has provided the Airport Director with such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight 

manual, and the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereat the Airport Director shall keep 

such data on file so that the owner need not resubmit the data for each Use of the Airport, and compliance 

by such Individual Aircraft with this Section shall be determined based on such data. 

Updated March 3, 2015 

Exhibit 4 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 12 PageiD #: 69 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- --- - --- --- -- --- -- - -- - -- - - - - - --X 

COMMITTEE TO STOP AIRPORT 

EXPANSION, eta!., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

eta!., 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------X 

SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT 

Civil Action 

No. CV-03-2634 

(Seybert, J.) 

(M. Orenstein, M.J.) 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, on January I 0, 1989, the East Hampton Town Board passed 

Resolution No. 145, wherein it adopted the Master Plan Update for East Hampton Airport ("the 

1989 Master Plan") with certain amendments that are set forth in the Resolution No. 145 (a copy 

of the Master Plan Update as adopted and Resolution No. 145 are attached hereto as Exhibit A); 

and 

WHEREAS, on December 15, 1989, the East Hampton Town Board passed 

Resolution No. 2020 wherein it approved an Airport Layout Plan (the "1989 ALP") for the East 

Hampton Airport and authorized Pat Trunzo, III, the then Deputy Supervisor, to sign the 1989 

ALP; and 

WHEREAS, on December 19, 1989, Pat J. Trunzo, III signed the 1989 ALP on 

behalf of the East Hampton Town Board (a copy of the Airport Layout Plan, as adopted and 

signed, is attached hereto as Exhibit B); and 

WHEREAS, by letter dated September 5, 1990 from Mr. Phillip Brito to Mr. 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 12 PageiD #: 70 

Tony Bullock, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA'') conditionally approved the 1989 

ALP (a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C); and 

WHEREAS, in 2001 the FAA did not have in its possession a signed copy of the 

1989 ALP and the FAA asked the Town to furnish a signed copy thereof; and 

WHEREAS, the East Hampton Town Board, on August 3, 2001, adopted 

Resolution No. 1023, wherein it authorized the re-signing of the ALP adopted in 1989 and the 

submission of the re-signed ALP (the "2001 ALP") to the FAA; and 

WHEREAS, in August 2001, the Town of East Hampton submitted the 2001 ALP 

to the FAA (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D) and represented that the 2001 ALP 

was a true copy of the 1989 ALP; and 

WHEREAS, according to published reports, in December of2002 or January of 

2003 in response to a federal subpoena, the Town of East Hampton produced a copy of the 1989 

ALP that included the signature of Pat J. Trunzo, lll; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that a comparison of the airport layout plan 

produced by the Town in response to the subpoena and the 2001 ALP demonstrates that the 2001 

ALP is not in fact a true copy of the 1989 ALP; and 

WHEREAS, to the best of the knowledge, information, and belief of the FAA, the 

approval of an ALP by the East Hampton Town Board may only be affected by resolution of the 

Town Board; and 

WHEREAS, to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the FAA, 

since December 15, 1989 there has been no resolution of the East Hampton Town Board 

approving an ALP for the East Hampton Airport other than the 1989 ALP; and 

WHEREAS, in this action Plaintiffs seek review of the determination by the FAA 

2 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 12 Page!D #: 71 

in 2001 to approve the 2001 ALP; and 

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests 

to the FAA concerning the East Hampton Airport prior to the initiation of the above-captioned 

action; and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve this action and the issues between them 

without further litigation; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and 

Defendants ("the parties"), that the above-captioned action shall be settled and compromised on 

the following terms and conditions: 

1. Plaintiffs will file a Rule 41 (a) stipulation of dismissal whereby the abovecaptioned action would be dismissed with prejudice, and without costs and fees to any party, 

provided that Plaintiffs' obligation to file such a stipulation shall not arise until the Defendants or 

their counsel sign this Agreement. Plaintiffs agree to file such stipulation within ten business 

days of receipt of Defendants' executed signature page. 

2. Plaintiffs will submit to the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia a Rule 4l(a) stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice and without costs and fees to any 

party, of the action entitled Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, et al. v. United States 

Department of Transportation, et al., Civil Action No. 02-0619 (JR) following receipt of the 

Court's order dismissing Civil Action No. CV -03-2634 (Seybert, J.) and execution by the parties 

of a stipulation of dismissal of Civil Action No. 02-0619 (JR). 

3. Plaintiffs will submit a request seeking dismissal, with prejudice and 

without costs and fees to any party, of the proceeding entitled Committee to Stop Airport 

Expansion v. Town of East Hampton, FAA Docket No. 16-02-04 to Defendant FAA within ten 

3 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 12 PageiD #: 72 

days of receipt by Plaintiffs' counsel of an order dismissing Civil Action No. 03-2634. 

Defendant FAA agrees that upon receipt of such request, it will withdraw the order of dismissal 

dated June 24,2002 in FAA Docket No. 16-02-04. 

4. Defendant FAA agrees that it will not assert, agree or conclude in any 

subsequent proceeding, including during its consideration of a request for federal financial 

assistance, that any master plan concerning the East Hampton Airport other than the 1989 Master 

Plan as modified by the Town Board in Town Resolution No. 145, which plan and resolution are 

attached as Exhibit A, is a master plan approved by the Town of East Hampton unless Defendant 

FAA obtains or is presented with a certified copy of the resolution of the Town Board adopted 

subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement approving such master plan. Defendant FAA 

also agrees that it will not assert, agree or conclude in any subsequent proceeding, including 

during its consideration of a request for federal financial assistance, that any airport layout plan 

concerning the East Hampton Airport, other than the 1989 ALP which is attached as Exhibit B, is 

an airport layout plan approved by the Town of East Hampton unless Defendant FAA obtains or 

is presented with a certified copy of the resolution of the Town Board adopted subsequent to the 

effective date of this Agreement approving such airport layout plan. Defendant FAA agrees that 

the 1989 ALP does not, as of the date hereof, constitute a "current" airport layout plan within the 

meaning of applicable federal law and; therefore, is not a legally acceptable basis for any federal 

financial assistance, including airport improvement grants, issued subsequent to the effective 

date of this Agreement. 

5. Defendant FAA will not award federal financial assistance, including 

grants, to the Town of East Hampton for the East Hampton Airport unless the application for 

federal financial assistance is based upon an airport layout plan for the East Hampton Airport 

4 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 12 PageiD #: 73 

that was adopted by resolution of the East Hampton Town Board and in a manner consistent with 

applicable law. 

6. Through and including December 31,2009, Defendant FAA will require 

that applications for federal financial assistance, including grants, from the Town of East 

Hampton for the East Hampton Airport include a copy of the Town Board Resolution approving 

the airport layout plan that is submitted to the FAA and a certified copy of the Town Board 

Resolution approving the submission of the application itself, except that the requirement to 

submit a copy of the Town Board resolution approving the extant airport layout plan shall not 

apply to a request for funding to develop a new or revised airport layout plan. 

7. Defendant FAA agrees, with respect to East Hampton Airport grants 

issued prior to the effective date ofthis Agreement, that the following grant assurances will not 

be enforced beyond December 31, 2014: 

• It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms 

and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical 

activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the 

public at the airport (grant assurance 22.a.). 

• The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, 

conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe 

and efficient operation of the airport (grant assurance 22.h). 

• It will keep up to date at all times an airport layout plan of the airport showing; 

(1) boundaries of the airport and all proposed additions thereto, together with the 

boundaries of all offsite areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport 

purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the location and nature of all existing 

and proposed airport facilities and structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons, 

terminal buildings, hangars and roads), including all proposed extensions and 

reductions of existing airport facilities; and (3) the location of all existing and 

proposed nonaviation areas and of all existing improvements thereon. Such 

airport layout plans and each amendment, revision, or modification thereof, shall 

be subject to the approval of the Secretary which approval shall be evidenced by 

the signature of a duly authorized representative of the Secretary on the face of 

the airport layout plan. The sponsor will not make or permit any changes or 

alterations in the airport or any of its facilities which are not in conformity with 

the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary and which might, in the 

5 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 12 PageiD #: 74 

opinion of the Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utility or efficiency of the 

airport (grant assurance 29.a.). 

• If a change or alteration in the airport or the facilities is made which the Secretary 

determines adversely affects the safety, utility, or efficiency of any federally 

owned, leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is not in 

conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary, the owner or 

operator will, if requested, by the Secretary; (1) eliminate such adverse effect in a 

manner approved by the Secretary; or (2) bear all costs of relocating such 

property (or replacement thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all costs 

of restoring such property (or replacement thereof) to the level of safety, utility, 

efficiency, and cost of operation existing before the unapproved change in the 

airport or its facilities (grant assurance 29.b.). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant FAA reserves its right to take action as provided in 

grant assurance 29 if the Town of East Hampton takes an action or proposes to take an action 

that will adversely affect the safety of the East Hampton Airport. All other grant assurances with 

respect to any grant awarded to the East Hampton Airport, and all grant assurances with respect 

to any grant awarded after the effective date of this Agreement, including grant assurances 22.a 

and 22.h and grant assurance 29, shall be enforced in full. 

8. a) Plaintiffs will file a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, 49 C.F.R. Part 7, in the form attached as Exhibit E (the "FOIA request"), 

within ten (1 0) business days of the execution ofthis Settlement Agreement. 

(b) Defendant FAA will respond to the FOIA request within seventyfive (75) days of receipt by the FAA of the FOIA request and will send the response to the 

undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs. Defendant FAA agrees that any record within the scope of 

the FOIA request that is withheld by Defendant FAA on the grounds that it is exempt from 

disclosure will be identified on a list or log and that list or log will be provided to Plaintiffs' 

counsel within I 05 days of receipt of the FOIA request. Defendant FAA also agrees that the 

FAA Regional Counsel's Office (''FAA counsel") will review any record so withheld and listed 

and will provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a written statement infoiming Plaintiffs as to whether 

6 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 7 of 12 PageiD #: 75 

FAA counsel agrees that such record is properly withheld. The parties agree that the records on 

the list or Jog shall be identified by providing the name of the author(s), the name of the intended 

and actual recipients, the date of the record, the type of record and the reason why the record was 

withheld. 

(c) The parties agree that Plaintiffs may appeal the determination of 

Defendant FAA by: (I) submitting a written appeal to the Assistant Administrator for Regions 

and Center Operations, FAA Headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 

20591; (2) submitting the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt by Plaintiffs' counsel of the 

response of Defendant FAA to the FOIA request or the FAA counsel's written statement, 

whichever occurs last in time, (3) referencing the FOIA Control Number, and including all 

information and arguments relied upon in support of the appeal in the submission to the Assistant 

Administrator for Regions and Center Operations; (4) indicating that it is an appeal from a 

denial of a request under the Freedom of Information Act; and (5) prominently marking the 

envelope in which the appeal is sent as "FOIA Appeal." Defendant FAA agrees that any 

determination of the Assistant Administrator concerning such appeal will be sent to the 

undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs. 

(d) The parties agree that within forty-five (45) days of receipt by 

Plaintiffs' counsel of a determination by the Assistant Administrator, Plaintiffs may request that 

this Court determine whether there has been a failure by Defendant FAA to comply with the 

Freedom of Information Act with respect to the FOIA request. The parties agree that the Court 

shall retain jurisdiction to determine any issues raised by the FAA response to the FOIA request, 

if such request is filed with the Court within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the Assistant 

Administrator's determination by Plaintiffs' counsel. The parties also agree that the Court's 

7 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 8 of 12 PageiD #: 76 Exhibit 5 

review of the Assistant Administrator's determination and the nature of the relief available shall 

be governed by the Freedom of Information Act. 

(e) The parties agree that this Paragraph 8 shall not be construed to 

afford Plaintiffs any rights beyond those provided in the Freedom of Information Act. 

9. Nothing herein, or in the settlement hereof, shall in any way be deemed an 

admission or evidence of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Defendants, including agents, 

officers, assigns, employees and representatives, past and present. 

10. Plaintiffs and Defendants understand and agree that this Agreement 

contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no statements, representations, promises, 

agreements or negotiations, oral or otherwise, between the parties or their counsel which are not 

included herein shall be of any force or effect. 

11. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date that the document is 

signed by the party who signs it last in time. 

COMMITTEE TO STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION 

Dated: January n, 2005 

By: 

Edward 

6rtv.d~ae. Gorman 

EDWARD GORMAN 

By: 

Edward 

~~46 Gorman 

68 Huckleberry Lane 

Dated: January¥· 2005 East Hampton, NY 1193 7 

8 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 9 of 12 PageiD #: 77 

.,;., 

Dated: January 4, 2005 

Dated: January~"(~ 2005 

Ar-vvl 24 1 '26Ds Dated:~, 2005 

Dated: January __ , 2005 

By: 

PAT TRUNZO, JR . 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

PAT J. TRUNZO, III 

~-1---h,~ [~ ,4J 

PatJ. Trunzo, III 

10 Cedar Trail 

EastHampton, NY 11937 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

(Admitted 

Shcih~~ Pro Hac Vice) 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036-1564 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Roslynn R. Mauskopf 

United States Attorney 

Eastern District of New York 

Attorney for Defendants 

610 Federal Plaza 

Central Islip, New York 11722-4454 

Kevin P. Mulry (KM 3752) 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

9 

Exhibit 5 
· · Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 10 of 12 PageiD #: 78 

Dated: January __ , 2005 

Dated: January __ , 2005 

Dated: January __ , 2005 

/Jf.<IL II 

Dated: .hmtlary / .., 2005 

By: 

PAT TRUNZO, JR. 

By: _______________ _ 

Pat Trunzo, Jr. 

148 Buckskill Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

PAT J. TRUNZO, III 

By:,:c--:-:::-----:::::--------- Pat J. Trunzo, III 

I 0 Cedar Trail 

East Hampton, NY 1193 7 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Sheila D. Jones, Esquire 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

1333 New Hampshire A venue, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036-1564 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Roslynn R. Mauskopf 

United States Attorney 

Eastern District ofNew York 

Attorney for Defendants 

610 Federal Plaza 

Central Islip, New York 11722-4454 

9 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 11 of 12 PageiD #: 79 

ExhibitE 

Federal Aviation Administration 

National Freedom of Information Act Staff, ARC-40 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear [Insert name]: 

This firm represents the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion with respect to certain 

matters relating to the East Hampton Airport located in the Town of East Hampton, New York 

(airport identifier: HTO). Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.§ 552, and the 

settlement agreement executed by the parties in Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, et a!. v. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, eta!., Civil Action, No. CV-03-2634 (E.D.N.Y.), we request 

the following documents and records: 

all records and documents referring or relating to the East Hampton Airport from January 

1, 1988 to December 31, 2003, that were received by, issued by or created by the 

following organizational units of the Federal Aviation Administration's Eastern Region 

(and all organizational units reporting to such organizational units); Airports 

Division(AEA-600), including without limitation the New York Airports District Office; 

the Airway Facilities Division (AEA-400); the New York NAS Implementation Center 

(ANl-200); the NY Flight Procedures Office (NYFPO); the Flight Standards Division 

(AEA-200); the Air Traffic Division (AEA-500); the Office of the Runway Safety 

Program Manager, and the Office of the Regional Administrator (AEA-1). In addition, 

the requester seeks documents and records referring or relating to the East Hampton 

Airport that were received, issued by or created by the Office of the Associate 

Administrator for Airports (ARP-1), Office of Airport Safety and Standards (AAS), and 

the Office of Airport Planning and Programming (APP), each of which are located at 

FAA National Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 

Exhibit 5 
Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 12 of 12 PageiD #: 80 

For the purposes of this request, as defined in the U.S. Department of Transportation's 

regulation implementing FOIA, 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the term "record" includes "any writing, 

drawing, map, recording, tape, film, photograph, or other documentary material by which 

information is preserved. The term also includes any such documentary material stored by 

computer." 49 CFR §7.2. Also for the purposes of this request, "record" and "document" mean 

draft versions, final versions and all attachments or exhibits to such "records" and "documents." 

Exhibit 5 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 

EH2014-105 

TITLE: NOISE STUDY AT THE EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT 

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DEFINITION: 

An RFP defines the situation or object for which the goods and or services are required, how 

they are expected to be used, and/or problems that they are expected to address. Bidders 

are invited to propose solutions that will result in the satisfaction ofthe Town's objectives in a 

manner most advantageous to the Town. The proposed solutions are evaluated against a 

predetermined set of criteria for which price may not be the primary consideration. 

RFP DISTRIBUTION-Important Notice-The Town of East Hampton distributes Request for 

Proposal documents from the East Hampton Town Purchasing Department. Copies of 

documents obtained from any other source are not considered official copies. Only those 

proposers who obtain documents from the Purchasing Department office are guaranteed to 

receive addendum information, if such information is issued. 

**Interested parties are advised to fax the enclosed Receipt Confirmation Form 

(Appendix A) immediately upon receipt of this RFP to ensure that they receive further 

information with regard to this RFP. 

Information offered from sources other than the Office of Purchasing is not official and 

may be inaccurate. Do not contact any other Departments or Agencies involved in the 

RFP. 

Closing date for this Request for Proposal is 3:00 p.m., prevailing time, on Thursday 

May 15, 2014. 

Send MARKED ORIGINALS AND 10 COPIES of each proposal. 

Please use the RFP number on all correspondence. 

For further information contact: 

Jeanne Carroza, CPPB 

Purchasing Agent 

Town of East Hampton 

631-324-4183 

Exhibit 6 
PART A-ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION 

INTRODUCTION 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON GOVERNMENT OVERVIEW 

The Town of East Hampton is a municipality located in the easternmost part of Suffolk County on 

Long Island. The Town is comprised of six hamlets East Hampton, Amagansett, Montauk, Springs, 

Wainscott and Sag Harbor. 

The Town has a five member Board with one elected Supervisor and four elected Councilpersons. 

RFPTERMINOLOGY 

Generally, throughout this RFP the following terminology is used: 

-"Mandatory"- a requirement that must be met in a substantially unaltered form. The terms 

"shall", "must", "required", and "will" are also used to indicate mandatory requirements. 

-"Desirable"- a requirement has a high degree of importance to the objectives of this RFP. The 

term "should" also indicates a desirable requirement. 

-"Optional"- a requirement that is not considered essential, but for which evaluation credit is 

given. The terms "may" and "can" also indicate option requirements. 

RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FORM 

Upon receipt, fill out the attached Receipt Confirmation Form (Appendix A) and fax or e-mail it to the 

Town Purchasing Department. All subsequent information regarding this RFP will be directed only to 

those who return the form with an indication that they intend to submit a proposal. 

CLOSING DATE 

Complete copies of each proposal must be received at the Purchasing Department Office located East 

Hampton Town Hall I 59 Pantigo Road East Hampton, New York 11937 by 3:00pm, prevailing time 

on Thursday May 15,2014. 

PROPOSALS MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE 

PROPOSER AND THE RFP NUMBER AND NAME ON THE SEALED ENVELOPE AND/OR 

BOX. 

Exhibit 6 
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

INQUIRIES 

All inquiries related to this Request for Proposal shall be in writing to the Town utilizing Appendix B -

Question Form. Information obtained from any other source is not official and may be inaccurate. Do 

not contact any other person( s) involved. Inquiries and responses will be recorded and may be 

distributed to all proposers at the Town's option. 

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES 

All recipients of this Request for Proposal who have returned the Receipt Confirmation Form will be 

notified regarding any changes made to this document. 

CHANGES TO PROPOSAL WORDING 

No changes to wording of the proposal will be accepted after submission unless requested by the 

Town. 

OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSALS 

All responses to the RFP become the property of the Town of East Hampton. 

PROPOSERS EXPENSES 

Prospective proposers are solely responsible for their own expenses in preparing a proposal and 

subsequent negotiations with the Town, if any. 

ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS 

This RFP should not be construed as a commitment by the Town to proceed with the proposed leases. 

The Town is not bound to accept the highest lease price or any proposal of those submitted. 

LIABILITY OF ERRORS 

While the Town has used considerable efforts to ensure an accurate representation of information in 

this RFP, all prospective proposers are urged to conduct their own investigations into the material facts 

and the Town shall not be held liable or accountable for any error or omission in any part of this RFP. 

ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS 

All the terms and conditions of this RFP are deemed to be acceptable by the proposers and 

incorporated in its proposal except those conditions and provisions that are expressly excluded by the 

proposal. 

QUOTES FROM THE MARKETPLACE 

The Town of East Hampton reserves the right to consider quotes from the marketplace by suppliers 

other than those invited to respond to this solicitation. 

FINANCIAL STABILITY 

The successful frrm must demonstrate financial stability and the Town reserves the right to conduct 

independent background checks to determine the financial strength of any and all organizations or 

individuals submitting proposals. 

Exhibit 6 
NEGOTIATION DELAY 

If any contract cannot be negotiated within thirty (30) days of notification to the designated proposer, 

the Town may terminate negotiations with that proposer, and negotiate a lease agreement with another 

proposer of its choice. 

DEFINITION OF CONTRACT 

The Town may at its option notify a proposer in writing that its proposal has been accepted and such 

acceptance shall at the Town's option constitute the making of a formal contract for the services set out 

in the RFP. Alternatively, the subsequent full execution of a written agreement shall constitute the 

making of a lease, and no proposer shall acquire any legal or equitable rights or privileges whatever 

relative to the proposal until the Town has delivered either a signed notice in writing to the proposer or 

a fully executed written agreement to the proposer. 

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 

The contractor shall give all notices and obtain all the licenses and permits required to perform the 

work. The contractor shall comply with all the laws applicable to the work or the performance of the 

contract. 

The successful Contractor shall not discriminate against any individual in accordance with applicable 

federal, state, or local laws. It will be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure the appropriate 

DBE goals are satisfied on projects 

GOVERNING LAW 

This RFP and any contract entered into between the proposer and the Town shall be governed by and 

in accordance with the laws of the County of Suffolk, the State of New York, and the United States of 

America. 

CONFIDENTIALITY 

This document, or any portion thereof, may not be used for any purpose other than the submission of 

proposals. 

Contractors should be aware that pertinent facts relating to their proposals, excluding trade secrets or 

proprietary information, could potentially be released as soon as sixty (60) days after the selection of 

the successful firm. 

The Town of East Hampton is subject to New York State's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). 

Should your submission to this RFP contain "trade secrets", or other information that the disclosure 

of which could reasonably be expected to be harmful to business interests, you must insure that 

such information is clearly identified and marked as such. Identification must be specific by item or 

paragraph. 

Marked information will be treated as Confidential Third Party Information. Should marked 

information be the subject of a request under FOIL, you may be requested either to consent to the 

request, or make representation explaining why the information should not be disclosed. 

Unpublished information pertaining to the Town or its customers obtained by the proposer as a result 

of participation in this project is confidential and must not be disclosed without written authorization 

from the Town. 

Exhibit 6 
GENERAL 

Subsequent to tbe submission of proposals, interviews and negotiations may be conducted with some 

of the proposers, but there shall be no obligation to receive further information, from any proposer. 

Any or all proposals shall not necessarily be accepted. The Town shall not be obligated in any manner 

to any proposer whatsoever until a written agreement has been duly executed relating to an approved 

proposal. The Town reserves tbe right to modify the terms of the RFP at any time in its sole discretion. 

Neither acceptance of a proposal nor execution of an agreement shall constitute approval of any 

activity or development contemplated in any proposal that requires any approval, permit or license 

pursuant to any federal or municipal statute, regulation or by-law. 

PRICING 

FIRM PRICING 

Prices quoted in the proposals shall be firm for a period of at least forty five ( 45) days after the 

submission deadline. 

CURRENCY AND TAXES 

Prices are to be in U.S. dollars. The Town is exempt from all sales and use taxes. 

Exhibit 6 
PART B- REQUIREMENTS SECTION 

Statement of Purpose and Scope 

The Town of East Hampton is seeking proposals for a preliminary, "screening" study of aviation noise 

and noise reduction measures related to the operation of the East Hampton Airport. 

After December 31, 2014, the Town will no longer be subject to certain FAA Grant Assurances 

(imposed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47107) and will no longer be restricted by the Airport Noise and 

Capacity Act of 1990 ("ANCA") or to the FAA regulations that implement that statute, 14 C.F.R. Part 

161, unless it should decide again to seek FAA funding. At that time, the Town, in its capacity as 

airport proprietor, will have increased opportunity and responsibility to protect East Hampton citizens 

from aviation noise impacts. East Hampton is therefore seeking experts in aviation noise and its 

effects to assess how best to fulfill its responsibility as airport proprietor. 

East Hampton is a quiet community, a summer resort destination sought for its physical beauty and as 

a refuge from urban stresses, including noise. This is specially the case in the period May through 

September, referred to as "the season," during which the resident population can increase by two to 

four times. From prior study, it is known that application of the FAA's 65 DNL noise standard to East 

Hampton Airport results in the conclusion that there is no significant noise outside of the airport itself. 

Yet, intrusive and objectionable airport noise exists in fact and has been a subject of communal strife 

and controversy for more than 30 years. It is clear, therefore, that, in a location such as East Hampton, 

application of the 65 DNL standard is meaningless. 

In weighing whether to adopt measures that would significantly reduce airport-related noise, East 

Hampton seeks to: 1) quantify the current noise in a meaningful and useful way that effectively 

captures the adverse effects experienced by residents and 2) quantify the reductions in noise that could 

plausibly be achieved by various measures, including, but not limited to: A) airport access restrictions 

based on any or all of, a) time of day, b) day of the week, c) season, d) numbers of airport operations, 

e) types of operations, f) classes and types of aircraft, g) noise budgets, and h) single-even noise 

limitations, B) route and altitude controls, and C) physical changes at the airport and/or alternative 

facilities. 

As the study will be used as a basis for preliminary judgment about the relative utility of measures that 

can or cannot practicably be applied while subject to FAA Grant Assurances and ANCA, noise control 

and mitigation measures should be screened solely for their noise reduction efficacy. This analysis is 

intended to be a purely objective measure of physical possibilities given the technical aviation and 

noise characteristics of existing air traffic. Accordingly, the set of measures evaluated should not be 

limited by regulatory or legal considerations, cost/benefit, or other policy considerations. Those 

matters will be addressed after a preliminary determination, on this basis of this study, of the measures 

that East Hampton would like further to evaluate and pursue. 

East Hampton has an existing noise ordinance, found at: http://ecode360.com/9230783. The noise 

ordinance, adopted in 1985, contains in Sec. 185-3(A) and (B) objective DBA standards for what the 

community does and does not consider excessively intrusive noise; it determines what is and is not 

deemed a noise nuisance in East Hampton. The study should evaluate airport-related noise by 

application of the community standard found in the extant noise ordinance. Additionally, each 

Exhibit 6 
scenario examined should be evaluated by application of the standard FAA DNL metric at the 65, 55, 

and 45 DNL levels. 

The study will not include fieldwork, but should be based on available data concerning the levels and 

types of operations at East Hampton Airport. In previous noise studies, the Town has identified the 

types of data that would be essential to identify and understand specific characteristics of helicopter 

and other aircraft noise issues related the airport, including flight-related data and noise complaints 

using the AirScene, Vector Airport Solutions, and PlaneNoise software platforms. The town also has 

data regarding flights and noise complaints occurring both before and after a seasonal air traffic 

control tower began operation, and data collected from seasons during which various voluntary flight 

tracks were adopted for use by helicopter operators. The town has INM modeling for the year 2009. 

The results of these earlier efforts will be made available to the successful proposer and the town will 

endeavor to respond positively to requests for data for the purpose of crafting a proposal. 

Elements of the study will include: 

1. Determination of flight tracks, helicopter routes, usage rates, and operations for the 

years 2012 and 2013; 

2. Determination of fleet mix of aircraft and helicopters; 

3. Creation of a protocol and metric for tally of events, by household affected, that 

exceed the Lmax standards set by the Town noise ordinance; 

4. Evaluation of the operations data set, including Lmax-event noise impacts exceeding 

the standard set by the Town noise ordinance and population count of Lmax impacts 

within contours having regard to daily, diurnal, seasonal, and peak variations; 

5. For each scenario examined, determination of the corresponding 65, 55, and 45 DNL 

contours in accordance with FAA practice; 

6. Determination of noise reduction benefits of alternative noise control measures and 

routes based on the tally of excess noise events, as described above, and for each such 

noise control measure, the reduction in noise within the 65, 55, and 45 DNL contours; 

7. Summary of findings, presenting any recommendations, including recommendations 

for further study, and identification of unaddressed or unresolved issues. 

It is expected that there will be not more than two meetings with town officials and interested 

community members for the purpose of scoping the set of measures to be evaluated in the study. 

Term of Contract 

The agreement will be for a period not to exceed three months. 

Exhibit 6 
Proposal Deadline 

All responses to this Request for Proposal must be received by 3:00p.m., prevailing time, on May 15, 

2014. 

Qualifications and Requirements 

All prospective proposers shall have sufficient qualified personnel, sub-consultants, and resources to 

accomplish all the services described herein within the prescribed time. A three-month time frame is 

estimated for completion of the studies. The proposer shall be capable of furnishing all necessary 

professional, technical, and expert services as required to complete all the elements of the noise study 

as described in the scope of work below. 

The Town is seeking one or more professionals for this study who have extensive knowledge and 

experience in two areas: 

1. Noise and its effects, including aviation noise effects; 

2. Noise modeling, including aviation noise modeling. 

In addition, the proposer must have technical, professional, and project management knowledge and 

expertise to prepare the noise study that addresses all of the required elements in the scope of work as 

outlined below. Specifically, proposer must: 

• Demonstrate knowledge of the research and literature concerning noise effects, including aviation 

noise effects; 

• Demonstrate proficiency with noise modeling software such as INM, CADNA-A, and/or Sound plan; 

• Demonstrate written communication skills and the ability to make complex information 

understandable to the public. 

Contents of Proposal 

The contents of the proposal shall be complete but concise. The proposal shall be in the format of a 

written submission on 8W' x II" sheets and made available both in hard copy and in electronic PDF 

format. Once submitted, the proposal, including the composition of the consulting team, cannot be 

altered without prior written consent of the Town. The proposal should, at a minimum, include the 

following sections: 

a) Transmittal Letter and Title Page: Include a transmittal letter containing a brief statement of the 

proposer's understanding of the work to be done and an indication of positive interest in performing 

this work for the Town. The letter and/or a title page should contain the name of the respondent's firm, 

a street address for correspondence, and a primary contact for this proposal. 

b) Services and Work Plan: The proposal should include a work plan describing the services, 

approach and methodology proposed for accomplishing the scope of work. The proposed phasing of 

the studies should be discussed (especially if different from the scope of work, described below). The 

proposal should be sufficient in detail to allow an objective analysis of the firm's capabilities and 

envisioned work plan in comparison with competing firms. 

Exhibit 6 
c) Qualifications and Experience: The proposal must supply information concerning the qualifications 

and experience of the proposing firm and the proposed project team for this study. 

d) Budget: All proposals must include proposed costs to complete the tasks described. 

THE TOWN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL WRITTEN 

PROPOSALS, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND TO WAIVE ANY IRREGULARITIES 

OR INFORMALITIES IN THE PROPOSALS. THE TOWN FURTHER RESERVES THE 

RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH INVESTIGATIONS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY AS TO THE 

QUALIFICATIONS OF ANY AND ALL CONSULTANTS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS. 

IN THE EVENT THAT ALL PROPOSALS ARE REJECTED, THE TOWN RESERVES 

THE RIGHT TORE-SOLICIT PROPOSALS. 

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL: 

Proposals shall be submitted in a sealed envelope or box addressed to Town of East Hampton 

Purchasing Department with the front of the envelope plainly marked with the name and address of 

the individual or firm submitting the proposal, together with "Noise Study at the East Hampton 

Airport" or similar words plainly marked on the front of the envelope. 

LATE PROPOSALS SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED. PROPOSERS SHALL BE 

SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIMELY DELIVERY OF THEIR 

PROPOSALS. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/QUESTIONS 

Any requests for additional information desired by the applicant regarding the furnishing of said 

qualifications and proposals shall be requested in writing from the Purchasing Department, East 

Hampton Town Hall, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, New York 11937. All requests for information 

must be received no later than Wednesday May 7, 2014. Any requests received after this date will not 

be considered. Any questions must be submitted in writing to the Purchasing Department @ 

jcarroza@ehamptonny.gov or fax# 631-324-7895 on the form herein provided (Appendix B). 

EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS 

The Town will review all proposals and choose the professional whom the Town deems to be most 

capable of providing the services sought herein. The Town may consider other factors in addition to 

the costs for such services, including, but not limited to, the professional's credentials, experience 

within the Town of East Hampton, and the Town Board's assessment of the professional's ability 

based upon the submissions made with the response to this proposal, previous submissions to the 

various town boards or subsequent inquiries or interviews. 

The Town reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals if deemed in 

the best interests ofthe Town. 

Exhibit 6 
PROPOSAL DEADLINE 

Closing date for this Request for Proposal is 3:00p.m., prevailing time, on Thursday May 15,2014. 

Proposers assume the risk of the method of dispatch chosen. The Town assumes no responsibility for 

delays caused by any delivery service. Postmarking by the due date shall not substitute for actual 

proposal receipt by the Town. Late proposals shall not be accepted nor shall additional time be granted 

to any potential Vendor. Proposals may not be delivered orally, by facsimile transmission, or by other 

telecommunication or electronic means. 

Exhibit 6 
APPENDIX A 

RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FORM 

Failure to return this form may result in no further 

communication regarding this RFP. 

Please complete and return this confirmation form within 5 working days to: 

Jeanne Carroza, CPPB 

Purchasing Agent 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, New York 11937 

Te1631-324-4183 

Fax 631-324-7895 

Company Name: _________________________ _ 

Address: ___________________________ ___ 

City: _____________ State: _____ Zip Code: ____ _ 

Contact Person: ________________________ _ 

Phone Number: Fax Number: 

I have received a copy of the above noted RFP. 

____ We will be submitting a proposal. 

____ We will not be submitting a proposal. 

I authorize the Town of East Hampton to send further correspondence that the Town deems to be of an 

urgent nature by the following method: 

Courier Collect: ___________ Mail: ____________ _ 

Signature: ___________________________ _ 

Title:----------------------------

Exhibit 6 
APPENDIXBQUESTION FORM 

ALL QUESTIONS PERTAINING 

TO THIS SOLICITATION 

MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. 

(PLEASE USE THIS FORM AND EMAIL TO JCARROZA@EHAMPTONNY.GOV OR FAX TO 

(631) 324-7895 TO THE 

ATTENTION OF JEANNE CARROZA, CPPB PURCHASING AGENT. 

WE WILL RESPOND AS SOON AS POSSlliLE.) 

Date: 

Company Name: 

Contact Name: 

Fax No.: 

Telephone No.: 

Exhibit 6 
APPENDIXD 

POLICY & PROCEDURES FOR OUTSIDE 

PROFESSIONALS/SUBCONTRACTORS 

Exhibit 6 
Procurement 

1. All outside professional and subcontractors must be authorized by 

Town Board Resolution that includes: 

a. Project scope of work- length of project 

b. Rates of pay for all authorized staff 

c. Maximum amount ("amount not to exceed") 

d. Reimbursable expenses (compliance with travel policy and 

procurement) 

e. Budget line item to be charged 

2. Upon adoption, the Town Attorney will process vendor contract with 

information included in the adopted resolution. 

a. Standard/Boilerplate Contract will be provided by Town Attorney 

b. Town Attorney approval required for all contracts 

3. An on-going contract with a vendor for consulting services may be 

approved and executed on an annual basis with hourly billing rates. 

a. Each project with maximum amount to be authorized by 

resolution 

4. Upon contract execution - Purchasing will process a Purchase Order 

consistent with terms of TBR and contract. 

NO work is to be performed prior to completion o(steps 1-4 

Anv changes in the contract terms or maximum amounts must be 

authorized bv Town Board Resolution 

Exhibit 6 
Procedures (or Outside Professional/ 

Subcontractors 

Payment Processing 

1. All invoices must include: 

a. Department Head approval 

b. Description of work performed - listing date, staff member, 

number of hours and authorized rate of pay 

c. Copies of all receipts for reimbursable expenses submitted 

d. Detailed copies of all travel expenses requested 

e. Detailed copies of all meal reimbursement (itemized restaurant 

receipt), names of attendees and business purpose of meal 

2. All claims for these expenditures are subject to pre-audit by the 

Division of Internal Audit before being scheduled on the Warrant. 

a. Be sure to allow additional time for this important step before 

Warrant deadlines 

Exhibit 6 
Procedures (Or Outside Professional/ 

Subcontractors 

Disallowed Expenses 

1. During the pre-audit, in accordance with the terms of the 

authorizing resolution and contract, Internal Audit will deduct any 

unauthorized or undocumented items from the Claim Voucher 

before processing 

2. Internal Audit will contact the department head to notify of missing 

information using the VOUCHER REJECTION FORM 

a. It is the Department's responsible to contact the vendor and 

obtain all missing documentation. 

3. A copy of the VOUCHER REJECTION FORM should accompany the 

missing documentation when re-submitted for payment. 

Exhibit 6 
Travel and Reimbursement Policy for Vendors 

Expenses will be reimbursed only in those instances where authorized by resolution of the Town 

Board, and included in the contract for services. 

Expenses for Federal and State Funded Programs will be reimbursed according to the rates set forth in 

the program guidelines. 

MEALS 

No reimbursements will be made without proper documentation. Meal receipts must be itemized 

(credit card receipts are not sufficient), and include a summary of the business purpose of the meal to 

be reimbursed and the names of individuals in attendance. 

Maximum meal allowances shall be as follows: 

Breakfast - $1 0. 00 

Lunch -$18.00 

Dinner- $30.00 

Reimbursement shall not be made for alcoholic beverages. 

Reimbursement shall not be made for snacks. 

LODGING 

Hotel bills must show room rates (i.e. single, double, all-inclusive); receipts must be originals. No 

receipts should be altered, highlighted, or blacked out. Maximum Room Rate allowance per room shall 

be as follows: 

Oct 15- May 15- $150 per night 

May 15- June 30 and Sept 1- Oct 14- $200 per night 

July and August - $250 per night 

July and August (Hamptons)- $350 per night 

AIRFARE/TRAIN TRAVEL 

Airfare or Travel by Rail will be reimbursed at the Coach or Lowest available rate, with proper 

documentation 

Airport shuttles to hotels will be allowed with proper documentation. Limousine service will not be 

reimbursed. No valet parking charges will be accepted. 

OTHER TRAVEL 

Rental cars will be reimbursed for the lowest available economy rental rate. 

Auto travel will be reimbursed at the current IRS Standard Mileage Rate. 

Tolls and parking will be reimbursed with submitted receipts. 

OTHER EXPENSES 

Expenses for supplies, printing, postage or any other out-of pocket expenses provided in the contract 

will be reimbursed with proper documentation. 

Exhibit 6 
East Hampton Town Board 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

ADOPTED 

RESOLUTION 2015-569 

Meeting: 05/07/15 06:30PM 

Department: Town Attorney 

Category: Local Law 

Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail 

Initiator: Elizabeth Vail 

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez 

DOC ID: 15329 A 

Adopt Local Law Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town 

Code Clarifying Penalties Provisions and Definitions in the 

Law and Providing for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of 

Restrictions 

WHEREAS, the East Hampton Town Board has considered several local laws to address 

restrictions on the use of the East Hampton Airport; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed local laws have been modified in response to further analysis and 

public comment; and 

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the previously proposed laws inadvertently omitted 

a definition of the term "season" because the definition appeared only in a proposal for 

which the Town Board has decided to defer consideration; and 

WHEREAS, it is important that the proposed local laws be enforced effectively but that the 

penalties not be excessive or disproportionate to the offense; and 

WHEREAS, the penalties for violation of Section 75-38 should be only as severe as prudent 

to discourage violations; and 

WHEREAS, it is appropriate for penalties for violations to be "violations" under New York law 

rather than "misdemeanors" and also be subject to civil action as appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, the entire study, analysis and public outreach process has demonstrated that 

there exists considerable reliable data on the impacts of the Airport on residents and visitors 

but the Town can only predict how people will change their behavior in response to the 

proposed restrictions; and 

WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the restrictions remain effective and no more restrictive 

than necessary to address community noise concerns, it is important for the Town to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the restrictions following the summer 2015 season; and 

WHEREAS that evaluation should reveal valuable information about people's behavior and 

reaction to the proposed restriction; and 

WHEREAS, the Town will consider modifications to the restrictions if warranted based upon 

the data about the results of the restrictions during the 2015 summer season; and 

WHEREAS, The Town Board of the Town of East Hampton held a public hearing on May 7, 

2015 to consider a local law amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code clarifying 

penalties provisions and definitions of the law and providing for evaluation of the 

effectiveness of restrictions; and 

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 1 
Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015 

WHEREAS, after considering the matter, the comments of the public at the time of the 

hearing, the Town Board believes that the establishment of the subject restrictions are in 

the best interests of the Town; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed local law is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 and Chapter 128 of the 

Town Code; now therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, said Local Law is hereby adopted to read as follows: 

LOCAL LAW NO. 7 OF 2015 

Intro. #7 Of 2015 

A LOCAL LAW amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code clarifying penalties 

provisions and definitions of the law and providing for evaluation of the effectiveness of 

restrictions. 

BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows: 

SECTION 1. Amendment 

Sections 75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, and 75-39, Penalties, of the Code of the Town of 

East Hampton are hereby amended to state as follows: 

§ 7S-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: 

A. Definitions. 

(5) "Season" shall be the months of May, June, July, August and September. 

§ 7S-39 PENAL TIES: 

A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 

shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction 

upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed 

violations, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to violations shall apply 

to such violations. 

B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be 

punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other 

entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: 

(1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$1,000. 

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 2 

.-4.F.1 __ 5·.··.'.'.".. ·.•.·•. __ it···7·····.-l 

I . JiaC:ket Pg. 2:!1 · 
Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015 

(2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$4,000. 

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than 

$10,000. 

(4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of 

the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not 

more than two years. 

C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall 

constitute a separate violation. 

D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements 

of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs 

incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual 

costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in 

violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this 

chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. 

E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain a civil action or 

proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel 

compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, 

organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the 

Individual Aircraft. 

(1) If a finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or 

any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty 

to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the 

discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that 

the defendants or any one of them individually caused, permitted or allowed the 

violation. 

SECTION 2. Authority 

The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding 

use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and 

(12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton 

Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

SECTION 3. Severability. 

If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged 

invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent 

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 3 

I Packet Pg. 232 
Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015 

jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, 

whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall 

not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or 

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. 

SECTION 4. Interim Evaluation 

The Town shall evaluate the effectiveness of all airport use restrictions set forth in Section 

75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, as soon as practical after September 30, 2015. The 

evaluation shall include assessment of whether the restrictions have been effective in 

reducing community disturbance and annoyance and ofthe financial consequences of the 

restrictions. The results of the evaluation shall be made available to the public and shall be 

the subject of a public meeting convened by the Town Board. After such public meeting, 

the Town Board shall consider what modifications, if any, to the restrictions set forth in 

Section 75-38 are warranted. 

SECTION S. Effective Date. 

This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. 

Dated: May 7, 2014 

RESULT: 

MOVER: 

SECONDER: 

AYES: 

BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK 

CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK 

ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] 

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman 

Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman 

Burke-Gonzalez, VanScoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell 

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 4 
:=_· NBRR 

February 2, 2015 

Larry Cantwell, Supervisor 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

lcantwell@ehamptonny.gov 

RE: East Hampton Airport 

Dear Mr. Cantwell: 

We are contacting you on behalf of three trade associations - the National Business 

Aviation Association (NBAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the 

National Air Transportation Association (NATA). As you may be aware, our associations 

represent the interests of numerous companies and individuals who are involved in aviationmany of which are located at, use, and/or have an interest in ensuring the continued 

accessibility and viability of East Hampton Airport (HTO). 

Our associations support the continued availability of East Hampton Airport to all types 

of aeronautical operations, and would like to have an opportunity to express and explain our 

concerns to you and the other members of the town board. Accordingly we would like to 

request a meeting- preferably in early February- which we believe could be beneficial for all 

parties interested in the airport. 

In particular, we would like to outline why it is important that HTO remain open and 

accessible, both for economic and practical reasons; the airport's benefits are not just local but 

also are an essential part of the national airspace system. We would also like to better 

understand the specific restrictions that may be under consideration, and whether there could 

be some common ground or other flexibility that would benefit from an in-person exchange 

between town and association officials. 

Finally, the often-cited 2005 settlement agreement -which suggests that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) will waive the enforcement of certain federal grant-based 

obligations applicable to East Hampton Airport -leaves numerous obligations in effect, and we 

believe that it would helpful to discuss the grant-based as well as statutory requirements that 

will continue to be applicable to HTO irrespective of the terms of the settlement agreement. 

1 

Exhibit 8 
Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters and we look forward to meeting 

with you and other appropriate town officials. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Brown 

NBAA, Chief Operating Officer 

Coon 

AOPA, Senior Vice President Government Affairs 

William R. Deere 

NATA, Senior Vice President for Government and External Affairs 

CC: Peter VanScoyoc, Deputy Supervisor, pvanscoyoc@ehamptonny.gov 

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman, kburke-gonzalez@ehamptonny.gov 

Sylvia Overby, Councilwoman, soverby@ehamptonny.gov 

Fred Overton, Councilman, foverton@ehamptonny.gov 

Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov 

2 

Exhibit 8 
March 12, 2015 

Mr. Larry Cantwell 

Supervisor 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

;:=-. NBRR -

RE: March 5, 2015 Town Board Meeting to Consider Restrictions on 

the Use of East Hampton Airport 

Dear Supervisor Cantwell: 

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA) and the National Business Aviation Association 

(NBAA) appreciated the opportunity to meet last week with Councilwoman 

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and you to discuss the Town of East Hampton's 

proposal to restrict operations at East Hampton Airport (HTO), and its 

related airport infrastructure plan. 

As the Council deliberates on these important issues, our associations -

which represent aviation businesses, pilots and company flight departments 

and other entities - caution that these proposals could undermine the longterm utility of the airport and will likely result in years of costly litigation. 

We understand the concerns that have led to the development of these 

proposals, and the general aviation (GA) community shares the town's 

desire to maintain a clean and quiet community of beaches and surrounding 

protected lands. We also appreciated your acknowledgement last week of 

the efforts of the GA community to work with the town toward that common 

goal. 

While the development of the HTO proposals under consideration might 

seem justified, given that they are based on GA traffic growth from 2013 to 

2014, a deeper analysis suggests the comparison of traffic between the two 

years may be a less-than-ideal basis for the proposals under review. 

Exhibit 9 
We understand that operations in and out of HTO in 2013 were not 

representative, due to the 2013 season's adverse weather conditions. 

Should comparisons of 2014 traffic levels with figures from other years not 

demonstrate a dramatic rate of growth; continued work with the GA 

community could lead to additional, effective noise mitigation initiatives. 

Furthermore, we understand that town leaders want to be responsive to a 

reported 25,000 noise complaints from 633 households, but as with the 

traffic data set, we think these numbers also may deserve a closer look, 

given that the comments submitted may represent a mix of genuine 

complaints, and an effort by a concerted minority to drive town leaders 

toward a radical and unnecessary over-reaction. 

We also appreciate the town Board's acknowledgment of the airport's long 

list of deferred maintenance, and its long-term commitment to the airport's 

health, as evidenced by its efforts to develop a financial plan to invest in the 

airport. However, the recent acknowledgment by the town's Budget and 

Financial Advisory Committee, noting that East Hampton cannot currently 

reach consensus on the sustainability of HTO if the proposed operational 

restrictions are imposed, should serve as an important wake-up call. 

Indeed, the imposition and structure of the proposed restrictions and 

investment plan will have a detrimental impact on HTO-based aviation 

businesses resulting in reduced revenues, investment and job loss. Aviation 

jobs are good-paying jobs that will not be easily replaced in the community; 

and while we appreciate your commitment to reviewing and reassessing the 

restrictions after October 31st, the damage from enactment of one or more 

of the proposals will have already been done. It is critical that the Town of 

East Hampton reconsider its action in order to encourage general aviation at 

the airport, including maintaining healthy businesses at the field. 

From a broader perspective, we emphasize that the proposals before the 

town Board raise significant legal questions. Although the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has stated that it will waive the enforcement of certain 

"grant assurances" at HTO, the agency's ability to waive enforcement is in 

dispute. In addition, other grant assurances and federal statutes remain in 

effect. These requirements likely prohibit any noise-based restrictions at 

HTO - and even if they allow some "proprietor's" discretion, the pending 

proposals (such as to prohibit operations by an entire class of aircraft on 

certain days) likely would be deemed impermissible. East Hampton also 

should be alert to the FAA's prohibitions on revenue diversion, which may 

require any legal costs incurred in defense of restrictions at HTO to be paid 

out of municipal accounts (i.e., by the East Hampton taxpayer), and would 

not allow those costs to be assessed to HTO accounts. 

Exhibit 9 
Simply put, East Hampton Airport is part of a national system of airports, 

and operational restrictions like those under consideration present a threat 

to the national air transportation system that transcends local communities. 

This is the primary reason why the FAA requires airports that have received 

federal funds to adhere to grant assurances requiring, among other things, 

access to all airports on reasonable conditions and without unjust 

discrimination. This is a critical element in the survival of our nation's system 

of airports and one the town can expect will be vigorously defended. 

Thank you for your ongoing consideration of our views and we welcome the 

opportunity for further discussions. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Brown 

NBAA, Chief Operating Officer 

Jim Coon 

AOPA, Senior Vice President Government Affairs 

William R. Deere 

NATA, Senior Vice President for Government and External Affairs 

CC: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman 

Exhibit 9 
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, New York 11937 

PRESS STATEMENT 

RE: Lawsuit Against Town of East Hampton 

CONTACT: 

Peter Kirsch 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1675 Broadway #2300 

Denver, CO 80202 

pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com 

Office: (303) 825-7000 

April21, 2015 

The Town of East Hampton was served with a lawsuit in Federal Court this morning by 

the Friends of the East Hampton Airport organization (along with several corporations). Stripped 

of its rhetoric, the 34-page complaint is entirely predictable and contains no surprises. The 

plaintiffs assert that the Town's three new restrictions on aircraft are unreasonable and violate the 

U.S. Constitution. (Friends of the East Hampton Airport et al. v. Town of East Hampton, U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed April21, 2015) 

The complaint cites several federal laws and provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but 

conveniently forgets what makes these restrictions unique: 

• Plaintiffs ignore the years of studies, analyses, public meetings, consultations with airport 

users, and deliberative process and Town Board deliberations that led to the three 

restrictions. 

• Plaintiffs forget that the Town has patiently waited for federal contractual obligations to 

expire before taking this action. 

• Plaintiffs don't mention that the Airport Noise and Capacity Act no longer applies to this 

airport. 

• Plaintiffs conveniently ignore the many, many steps that led to the Town Board decision 

that these restrictions are necessary - steps that included federally mandated flight paths 

for helicopters, voluntary flight paths for all aircraft, voluntary curfews, voluntary altitude 

requirements and other measures. All of these efforts proved ineffective. 

• Plaintiffs don't admit that the restrictions are narrowly targeted to address the operations 

of most concern that generate the most disturbance- and that the restrictions will not affect 

almost 80 percent of the operations at the Airport. 

We have, with surgical precision, defined precise restrictions that limit only the most disturbing 

operations at East Hampton Airport. The Town has committed to an incremental approach- and 

to reevaluation of the restrictions after the end of the 2015 season to make sure that they have been 

only as restrictive as necessary. 

Exhibit 10 
The Town is fully prepared for this litigation and will vigorously defend its legal and 

constitutional right to impose reasonable, non-arbitrary, and carefully balanced restrictions. 

Plaintiffs raise issues that we are fully prepared to defend. The issues that plaintiffs raise have 

been litigated over and over again in lawsuits throughout the nation and airport proprietors have 

consistently won. 

While we anticipated this lawsuit, it is sad that these airport users are now going to force 

the Town to spend scarce airport fuuds to defend these restrictions rather than working to make 

this airport the best it can be. 

Exhibit 10 

Statement 

om aircraft operating at East Hampton Airport 

many residents of the East End of Long Island. 

nts find helicopters more disturbing than any 

category of fixed-wing aircraft. 

bance caused by all types of aircraft is most 

ant when operations are (1) most frequent and 

n evening, night, and early morning hours. 

2 
trictions Considered 

 all aircraft operations year~round 11 pm - 7 am 

 noisy aircraft year-round during 8 pm - 9 am 

, night, and early morning hours (extends curfew 

oulder hours") 

 helicopter operations on weekends and 

s during the summer season (May 1 - Sept. 30) 

 noisy aircraft from conducting more than one 

 and one landing in any calendar week during the 

r season 

3 
strictions Proposed 

 all aircraft operations year .. round 11 pm - 7 am 

 noisy aircraft year-round during 8 pm - 9 am 

, night, and early morning hours (extends curfew 

oulder hours") 

 noisy aircraft from conducting more than one 

 and one landing in any calendar week during the 

r season 

ly affect only 23% of all operations, but address 

complaints 

pes of aircraft- at the times of the day, week, and year

ssociated with the greatest number of complaints 

4 
ns require defining: "season", "weekend", 

, "shoulder hours", and "noisy aircraft" 

September 30 

d 

y noon - Monday noon 

 

al Day, Independence Day and Labor Day 

ude the days before and after the holidays 

r hours {for extended curfew) 

m. and 7 - 9 a.m. 

5 
"noisy" aircraft 

 international regulators use a number of noise 

to certify aircraft designs 

avy props, and heavy helicopters are rated in terms of 

e Perceived Noise Level decibels (EPNdB) 

licopters are rated in terms of either EPNdB or Sound 

e Level (SEL) 

ops are rated in terms of maximum A-weighted decibels 

oisy aircraft are defined as follows: 

dB ratings are published by U.S. or international 

 bodies, noisy aircraft are those with approach levels 

> 91.0 EPNdB 

6 
--------

utcomes of Restrictions (1) 11 pm - 7 am curfew on all aircraft, 

m curfew on all noisy aircraft, and (3) limit each noisy aircraft to 

s (one takeoff and one landing) per week in season 

ncremental outcomes of restrictions 1, 2, and 4 

May 1 . · .. 

ohday . w·· .··k··.· ... d· ·.··.·· . . d· .·H· .. ·.·I·d. · . Tota1Mayb-Sept.30 1i t .. 1.A .. . ·.· 1.0 .. t 

· . • · .• • . ee en an · • . o 1. ay · ·· · · . .· · ·· ·. · .· • .. · · · · · · o a .· nnua . · u c;omes 

6u1:cor1les•{see.note). · Outcomes 

•. .f.+---..-"""·'-'····+····"""··..,-··'"· """ .. ··+·"""· 

...•. · . 

· .. All 

q.lt; Wmg A•rcraft 

---------

ction Estimated Operations Effected 

ew on all I 148 I 263 I 411 I 175 I 323 I 498 I 199 I 382 I 581 

ons 

ew on all I 631 I 171 I 802 I 838 I 229 I 1,067 I 973 I 270 1 1,243 

rations 

ted to two I 

 in season 2,596 I 159 I 2,755 I 3,715 I 283 1 3,998 I 3,715 I 283 1 3,998 

ction I Estimated Associated Complaints I I I I I 

ew on all I 552 I 264 I 816 I 702 I 335 I 1,037 I 747 I 362 1 1,109 

ons 

w on all I 2,225 I 301 I 2,526 I 2,847 I 369 I 3,216 I 2,997 I 378 I 3,376 

rations 

ted to two I 

 in season 6,066 I 195 I 6,261 I 8,681 I 348 I 9,029 I 8,681 I 348 I 9,029 
tcomes of Restrictions (1) 11 pm - 7 am curfew on all aircraft, 

m curfew on all noisy aircraft, and (3) limit each noisy aircraft to 

ns (one takeoff and one landing) per week in season 

Total outcomes of restrictions 1, 2, and 4 

.~ept.30 ·. .. > .. · .•... · .. . > > .• ·.··•.····· • ..•. 

oliqay ·.· ~ayt ... ~ep~~~f-~ Q TqtCIJMayl~$ept. 30. 

operat0rs. eee.n ..... an ... o.1 ay Outc()mes 

" 111feekenc1. O.Litcorne~ ($ee note) · · · 

~lll'lull'l. +..-.-.. -'-'.-"' .. " ... s-.. ---+---+---+2~____:_,-+____:_____:_____:_---r-~~~____:_~____:_"-4---'--____:_---r-+---r-____:_____:_r---____:_~ 

, 

~!)~yare • Helh · ·. Eix;e~~> ·· .. 

 !=Lito copter Wing Ail'cl'aft ··· cOp~ei: J)ter 

ns affected I 3,375 593 3,968 1 4,128 835 5,563 1 4,887 935 5,822 

ations in 

4,525 I 10,863 I 15,388 I 5,855 I 14,004 I 19,859 I 7,044 I 18,670 I 25,714 

associated 

 2, and 4 

ciated 

s 

plaints in 

associated 

 2, and 4 

74.6% I 5.5% I 25.8% I 80.8% 6.0% I 28.0% I 69.4% I 5.0% I 22.6% 

8,843 I 761 I 9,604 I 12,230 1,051 1 13,282 1 12,425 1 1,088 1 13,513 

12,126 1 4,943 1 17,069 1 14,935 5,999 I 20,934 I 16,152 I 6,316 I 22,468 

72.9% I 15.4% I 56.3% I 81.9% 17.5% I 63.4% I 76.9% I 17.2% I 60.1%