**U.S. De**  **p artment**  **of Trans** **p ortation**  **Federal Aviation**  **Administration**

**June 1 9**  **, 20**  **15**

**Via Fed**  **Ex**

**Mr. Steven**  **M. Taber, Esq.**  **Taber Law**  **Group 1 League,**  **#60 036**  **Irvine, CA**  **92602 Ms.**  **Carlene V.**  **Mcintyre Assi**  **stant General**  **Counsel Law**  **Depa**

**rtm ent**  **Office of**  **Airport Compliance**  **and Management**  **Analysis**

**The Port**  **Auth ority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey**  **4 World**  **Trade Center**  **1 5 0**  **Greenwich St** **r eet,**  **25t h**  **Floor New**  **York, NY**  **1 0 007**  **Mr. Arnold**  **D. Kolikof** 

**f At** **torney Law**  **Depa**

**rtm ent**  **The Port**  **Auth ority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey**  **4 World**  **Trade Center**  **1 5 0**  **Greenwich Street,**  **25th Floor**  **New York,**  **NY 1**  **0007 Dear**  **Mr. Ta** 

**ber, Ms.**  **Mcin**

**tyre and**  **Mr. Kolikof** 

**f: 800**  **Independence Ave.,**  **SW. Washington,**  **DC 20591** 

**RE: KENNETH**  **D. PASKAR**  **AND FRIENDS**  **OF LAGUARDIA AIRPORT,**  **INC. v.**  **THE PORT**  **AUTHORITY OF**  **NEW YORK**  **AND NEW**  **JERSEY, AN**  **INTERSTATE COMPACT**  **AGENCY PURSUANT**  **TO ARTICLE**  **I, SECTION**  **6 OF**  **THE US**  **CONSTITUTION, FAA**  **Docket No.**  **16 -1**  **1- 04**  **Enclosed is a**  **copy of** **the final**  **agency decision**  **and order**  **of the**  **Federal Aviati**  **on Admini**  **stra**

**tion (FAA)**  **with respect**  **to the**  **above-ref erenced**  **mat ter.** **The Associa** **te Admini**  **strator concludes**  **that the**  **ana lysis**  **and conclusions**  **contained in**  **the**

**Director 's**  **Determination with**  **regard to Grant**  **As surance**  **5, Grant**  **Assurance 1 9**  **, Grant**  **As surance**  **20, Grant**  **As surance**  **21, and**  **Grant As**  **surance 34**  **are supported**  **by a preponderance**  **of reliable,**  **probati ve,**  **and substantial**  **evidence, and are**  **consi stent**  **with app** **licable law,**  **precedent, and**  **FAA policy.**  **The Complainan** 

**ts' Motion**  **fo r**  **Recusal and**  **Motion for**  **Reconsi derati**  **on or**  **Remand are**  **denied. The**  **reasons fo** **r upholding the**  **Director 's**  **Determination are set fo**  **rth in**  **the enclosed**  **final agency**  **decision. Sincerely,** 
**\f l.---**  **2 CERTIFICATE**  **OF SERVICE** 

**I HEREBY**  **CERTIFY that**  **on June** 

# Q **, 20**  **1 5 , I**  **caused to**  **be placed in**  **the United**  **States mail (first class mail,**  **pos tage**  **paid) opy**  **of the**  **fo regoing**  **document addre**  **ssed to**  **: For**  **Com pl** **ainant Mr.**  **Steven M.**  **Tab er,**  **Esq. Taber**  **Law' Group**  **1 League,**  **#60 03**  **6 Irvine,**  **CA 92602**  **For Resp**  **ondent Ms.**  **Carlene V.**  **Mc intyre**  **Assi stant**  **General Counsel**  **Law Department**  **The P�rt**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New Jersey**  **4 World**  **Trade Center**  **150 Greenwich**  **Street, 25t** **h Floor**  **New York,**  **NY 1 0**  **007 Mr.**  **Arnold D.**  **Koli koff**  **Attorney Law**  **Depa**

**rtment The**  **Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and New Jersey**  **4 World**  **Trade Center**  **1 5 0**  **Greenwich S**  **t reet,**  **25t h**  **Floor New**  **York, NY**  **10 007**  **Hand Delivered**  **to: FAA**  **Part 16**  **Airport Proceedings**  **Dock et**  **FAA Airport**  **Compliance and**  **Management Ana** **lysis, AC0-**  **1 00** 

**Office of**  **Airport Com** **plia nce**  **and Management**  **Ana lysis**  **3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT**  **OF TRANSPORTATION**  **FEDERAL AVIATION**  **ADMINISTRATION**

**WASHINGTON, DC** 

**Kenneth D.**  **Paskar and**  **Friends of**  **LaGuardia Airport,**  **Inc. Appellant/Complainant** 

**v.**
**The Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey, an**  **Interstate Compact**  **Agency Pursuant**  **to Article**  **I, Sect** **i on**  **6 Of**  **the US**  **Const i** **tution Appellee/Respondent** 

**FAA Docket**  **16 -11-**  **04**
**ASSOCIATE ADMINI**  **STRATOR FOR**  **AIRPORTS**

**FINAL AGENCY**  **DECISION I.**  **INTRODUCTION This**  **matter is**  **bef**

**ore the Federal Aviation**  **Admini stra**  **tion (FAA)**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports on**  **appeal filed**  **by Kenneth D.**  **Paskar and Friends**  **of LaGuardi** **a Airport, Inc .,**  **(Comp lainan** 

**ts) fr** **om the**  **Director 's**  **Determination of**  **Se ptember**  **27, 20**  **1 2 ,**  **iss ued**  **by the**  **Director of**  **the FAA**  **Of**

**fice of**  **Airport Complia**  **nce and**  **Management Ana lysis,**  **pursuant to**  **the Rules**  **of Practi** **ce for**  **Fe d** 

**erally Assisted**  **Air**

**port Enf**  **orcement Proceed** 

**ings fo** **und in**  **14 CFR**  **Part 1 6** 

**. The**  **Direct or'**  **s Determina** 

**tion dismissed**  **the Compla** **inants '**  **allegations that**  **the Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Je r** **sey (Port**  **Authority, PANYNJ,**  **Respondent, Airport**  **Sponsor) viola**  **ted its**  **grant assu** **ranc es**  **in fai**  **ling to**  **stop the**  **const ructi**  **on of**  **the North**  **Shore Marine**  **Transf er**  **Station (NSMTS)**  **in College**  **Po int,**  **New York**  **near LaGuardia**  **Airport (LGA).**  **The Complainants**  **argue certain**  **conclusions made**  **by the**  **Director were**  **inconsi stent**  **with the**  **fa cts**  **and evidence**  **in the**  **record, arb** **i trary**  **and capri**  **cious, and**  **not in**  **accordance with**  **app licable**  **law. In**  **their S**  **umm ary**  **of Argument,**  **the Comp**  **lainants claim**  **that the Director**  **fai led**  **to ackn** **owledge that**  **the NSMTS**  **is an**  **"airport hazard"**  **and an**  **incompa ti**  **ble land use, and that**  **the P** **ANYNJ "f** 

**ai led to**  **take reasonable and appropriate action** 

**... to**  **prevent the**  **creation of**  **the airport**  **hazard and**  **incompat ible**  **land use."**  **1 The**  **Complai nants**  **argue that**  **"since the**  **PANYNJ**

**has the**  **means and au** **thority to**  **stop the**  **construc tion**  **ofNSM TS**  **at the**  **College Point**  **loca tion**  **and has**  **fai led**  **to do**  **so, it**  **is in**  **violation of**  **Grant As**  **suranc es**  **1 9 ,**  **20, 21,**  **and 34."** **2 The**  **Compla inants**  **also suggest that**  **the NSMTS**  **"bars the**  **P ANYNJ**  **fr om**  **taking certain**  **actions to**  **relieve congestion at**  **LaGuar dia.**  **" 3**  **The Compla** 

**inants raise**  **the fo**  **llowing issues**  **on appeal**  **:**

**a. The Director**  **Has Ignored**  **the Facts**  **of the**  **Case By**  **Concluding that**  **NSMTS Is**  **Not in**  **the Runway**  **Protection Zone**  **fo r**  **Runway 31**  **at the Airport,**  **and theref**  **ore Errone** **ously Concluded**  **that the Port**  **Authority Has**  **Not Viola**  **ted Grant**  **As suranc**  **es 19**  **, 20,**  **21 and**  **34. b.**  **The Director**  **Failed To**  **Take Into**  **Account the**  **Fact that**  **the Loca**  **tion ofNSM**  **TS at**  **College Po**  **int Prohibits**  **the Airport**  **From Implementing**  **the Long**  **Planned and**  **Congressionally Mandated**  **Precision Approach**  **fo r**  **Runway 31**  **in Vio**  **lation of**  **Grant As**  **sura nces**  **1 9 ,**  **20, 21**  **and 34. c. Even If**  **the Director**  **Were Correct**  **in Determining**  **that the**  **NSMTS Were**  **Outside the**  **RPZ and Did**  **Not Conflict with the Installation**  **of a**  **Precision Approach,**  **It Create**  **s a Hazard** **ous Wildl**  **if e**  **Attractant and**  **Therefore The**  **Port Authority**  **Is in**  **Vio lation**  **of Grant**  **As suranc** **es 1 9**  **, 20,**  **21 and**  **34. d.**  **The Director**  **Erred in**  **His Determination**  **in Finding**  **that the**  **Port Authority**  **Did Not**  **Fail to**  **Take "Appropriate**  **Action" to**  **Protect Terminal**  **Airspace fr** **om the**  **Creation of Airport Hazards**  **and Incompatible**  **Land Uses**  **in Vio**  **lation of Grant**  **As sura** **nces 20**  **and 21.**  **4 The**  **Compla**

**inants also**  **make a motion**  **in their**  **Appeal requesting**  **t he**  **FAA recuse**  **itself fr** **om deciding**  **this matter**  **because it**  **cannot be**  **an un** **biased and**  **unpre judiced**  **ad**

**ju dicator.**  **5 In**  **its Reply,**  **the Respondent**  **sta tes**  **the record**  **supports the**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion**  **that the**  **PANYNJ acted in**  **compliance with**  **the applicable**  **Grant Assu** **ranc es**  **1 9 ,**  **20, 21,**  **and 34**  **by ta** **king reasona**  **ble ef f**  **orts to**  **elim inate**  **or mitigate**  **possible hazard**  **s to aircraft**  **using LGA**  **which would**  **have been**  **created by**  **the NSMTS**  **as originally**  **proposed. 6**  **Upon an**  **app eal**  **of a Part**  **16 Direct** **or 's**  **Determination, the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r Airports**  **must determine**  **w h** **ether (a)**  **the findings**  **of fa** **ct made by**  **the Director**  **are supported by**  **a preponderance**  **of reliable,**  **probati ve,**  **and substantial**  **evidence, and**  **(b) each**  **conclusion of**  **law is made**  **in accordance**  **with app**  **licable law,**  **precedent, and**  **public policy.**  **14 CFR §**  **1 6 .33(**  **e); see,** 

**1 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **2 I ,**  **pa ge**  **7 2**  **FAA Ex** **hibit 1,**  **Item 21,**  **pa ge**  **6 3**  **FAA Ex**  **hibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 I ,**  **pa ge**  **7 4**  **FAA Ex**  **hibit I,**  **Item 2I**  **5 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **2 I ,**  **pa ge**  **2 6**  **FAA Ex**  **hibit I,**  **It em**  **22, pa** **ge 4 7**  **2 e.g** 

**., Ricks**  **v. Mi** **lli ngton**  **Mu ni** **ci pal**  **Air port,**  **FAA Docket**  **No. 1 6**  **-9 8-**  **1 9 ,**  **Final Decision**  **and Order**  **p. 21**  **(Dec. 30,**  **1 9 99).**  **In arriving**  **at a**  **final decision**  **on this**  **Appeal, the FAA**  **has reexamined**  **the record,**  **including t** **h e**  **Direct or**  **'s Determina** 

**tion, the**  **administrative record**  **supporting the**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion,**  **the Compl** **ainan**

**ts' Appeal,**  **and PANYNJ**  **'s Reply**  **in light**  **of appl**  **i cab**  **l e**  **law and**  **policy. Based**  **on this**  **reexamina**

**tion, the**  **FAA af** 

**firms the**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion**  **with regard**  **to Grant**  **As suranc**  **es 5,**  **Preserving Rights**  **and Power**  **s; 1 9**  **, Op** **erati ons**  **and Mai** **ntenance; 20,**  **Haz ard**  **Remov al**  **and Mi** **tigati on;**  **21, Compati** **ble Land**  **Us e;**  **and 34,**  **Policies, Standards,**  **and Sp** **ecificat ions.**  **The Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator concludes**  **that, with**  **regard to**  **these grant**  **assuranc es;**  **the Director**  **'s Determination**  **is supported**  **by a**  **preponderance of**  **reliable, proba**  **ti ve,**  **and substantial**  **evidence, and is**  **consi stent**  **with app** **licable law,**  **precedent, and**  **FAA policy.**  **T he**  **Associa te**  **A d** **m i** **n i**  **stra**

**tor concludes**  **the Complainan**  **ts' Appeal**  **does not contain**  **persuasive arguments**  **suf**

**fici ent**  **to reverse**  **the Direct** **or' s**  **Det erminati**  **on, and there**  **is no**  **reason fo**  **r the**  **FAA to**  **recuse itself**  **fr**

**om deciding**  **this appeal.**  **This decision**  **constitutes the**  **final decision**  **of the**  **Associa te**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports pursuant**  **to 14**  **CFR Part**  **1 6**

**. II.**  **SUMMARY OF**  **THE DIRECTOR'S**  **DETERMINATION On**  **September 27,**  **20 12,**  **the Director**  **concluded that**  **the Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New Jersey was**  **not in viola** 

**tion of**  **its Federal**  **oblig at** **ions as**  **set fo** **rth in its**  **airport grant**  **assu ranc**  **es and**  **existing Federal**  **statu tes.**  **Although the**  **Comp lainants**  **did not allege**  **a vio**  **lation of**  **Grant As**  **surance 5,**  **Preserving Rights**  **and Power** 

**s, the**  **Director evaluated**  **complia nce**  **with this**  **grant assurance**  **based on the**  **allega tion**  **that PANYNJ**  **fa iled**  **to prevent**  **construction of**  **the NSMTS** 

**. As**  **the record shows, the City**  **of New**  **York, and**  **not the**  **Respondent, is**  **constructing the**  **NSMTS. The City**  **is not**  **the sponsor**  **of the**  **airport. 7**  **Unde r**  **these circumstan** **ces, the**  **Respondent could**  **be in**  **violation if**  **it does**  **not hold**  **suf fici**  **ent rights**  **and powers**  **to comp** **l y**  **with its**  **Fed eral**  **obliga tions,**  **or if**  **it ceded**  **its rights**  **and powers**  **to the**  **City. The**  **Director appropria**  **tely fo**  **und that**  **PANYNJ did**  **not cede,**  **or fa** **il to**  **exer cise,**  **its rights**  **and powers**  **concerning the**  **const ru** **ction of**  **the NSMTS.**  **8 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **on November**  **24, 2004,**  **the City**  **of New**  **York and**  **Respondent entered**  **into an**  **amended and**  **restated agreement**  **of lease**  **fo r**  **the operation**  **of LGA.**  **9 The**  **Director fo** **und that**  **P ANYNJ has**  **the right**  **to prevent**  **the esta** **bli shment**  **of any**  **structure, fac** **ili ty,**  **or natural growth**  **loca ted**  **on the airport.**  **10 The**  **Director also fo**  **und that**  **the agreement**  **reasonably protects**  **the airport**  **fr om**  **ob struct**  **ions and**  **hazards to**  **air navigati**  **on, as**  **well as**  **incompatible land**  **uses ad**  **j acent**  **to LGA.**  **11 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **the P** **ANYNJ took**  **reasonable acti**  **ons and**  **exer cised**  **due diligence**  **to**

**7 See**  **Paskar v.**  **Fed Aviation**  **Ad min.,**  **No . 1**  **1- 2720-**  **ag (2**  **d Cir.**  **Jun. 12,**  **2012) ( u**  **p h ol**  **di ng**  **FAA dis**  **mis sa**  **l of**  **the City**  **ofNew York**  **be ca**  **u se**  **it is**  **no t**  **an a i**  **rpor t**  **spo ns**  **or). 8**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **28 9**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 17,**  **pa ges**  **26, citing**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **55 1°**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **27 11**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **27 3** **prevent the**  **construction of**  **the NSMTS**  **when the FAA iss** **ued its**  **notice that**  **the fa** **cil ity**  **was**

**presumed to**  **be a hazard to**  **air na**  **viga tion.**  **1 2**  **The Director**  **determined PANYNJ**  **to be**  **in complia**  **nce with**  **Grant As**  **surance 1 9**  **, Op** **erations and**  **Ma intenance.**  **1 3**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that PANYNJ**  **was reasonable**  **to assure**  **the NSMTS**  **did not**  **present a saf** 

**ety hazard**  **to LGA, or**  **interfere with**  **its use fo**  **r airport purpo**  **se s.**  **1 4**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that P** **ANYNJ had**  **a program**  **in place,**  **through the**  **Amended and Restated Agreement of**  **Lease of**  **the Municipal**  **Air Terminal**  **s, to**  **evaluate and restrict incompatible**  **land uses and**  **uns afe**  **development at, or**  **around, LGA**  **which would**  **interf ere**  **with its**  **use fo**  **r airport**  **purpo ses.**  **1 5**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that the Respo** **ndent had**  **taken appropriate acti**  **on to**  **prevent the**  **NSMTS whe**  **n the**  **FAA iss**  **ued its**  **n o** **t ice**  **that the**  **fa cili** **ty was**  **presumed to**  **be a hazard**  **to air naviga**  **ti on.**  **16 The**  **Director fu** **rther fo**  **und that**  **PANYNJ took**  **appropriate acti**  **ons to ensure the**  **NSMTS 's**  **compatibility with**  **saf**

**e air**  **oper ati**  **ons including**  **"filing a Petition**  **with the**  **FAA fo** **r a review**  **of the**  **Determination of**  **No Hazard**  **in October**  **2006; engaging**  **in discussions**  **with the**  **City of**  **New York**  **in late**  **2006 and**  **into 2007,**  **and determining**  **that the**  **transfer sta**  **tion will be**  **loca**

**ted outside**  **the RPZ**  **and outside**  **the ICAO dep** **arture splay;**  **and determining**  **that the**  **redesigned height**  **also puts**  **the structure**  **below the**  **slope of**  **exi sting**  **buildings, so**  **that it**  **will not**  **be a**  **contro ll**  **ing obstr** 

**uction; and having the P** **ANYNJ' s**  **Chief Wildlif**  **e Biologist**  **parti cipa** 

**te as**  **a member**  **of the panel**  **of experts**  **tasked with**  **the evaluation of**  **the NSMTS**  **and its**  **compatibility with**  **respect to**  **bird st rikes**  **and saf**  **e air**  **operations at**  **LGA. "**  **17 The**  **Director fu** **rther fo**  **und that**  **P ANYNJ**  **had exercised**  **due dilige** **nce with**  **respect to**  **the NSMTS**  **under Grant**  **Assu rance**  **20, Ha**  **zard Remov** **al and**  **Mi tig**  **ation. 18**  **The Director**  **relied on**  **the record that**  **the P ANYNJ**  **ultimate ly**  **determ ined**  **that the proposed**  **NSMTS was**  **loca ted**  **outside of**  **the exi**  **sting RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.** **19 The**  **Director fu**  **rther fo** **und the**  **FAA confirmed**  **the proposed**  **NSMTS was**  **outside of the**  **existing RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.**  **20 The**  **Director also**  **fo und**  **that the**  **P ANYNJ**  **had exercised**  **due diligence in**  **evaluating the**  **impact of**  **the NSMTS**  **on fu** 

**ture airport**  **plans, and**  **that the**  **PANYNJ had**  **reasonably complied**  **with its**  **app roved Airport**  **L ayout**  **Pla n**  **(ALP) ?**  **1 The**  **Director concluded**  **that an**  **air port**  **sponsor is**  **not obli**  **gated to**  **pursue airport**  **development at any cost, and**  **that des**  **irable improvements**  **may no t**  **be fe** **asible. 22**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that future**  **plans identified on**  **the ALP**  **do not**  **demon strate**  **a need to protect**  **the airspace**  **from the**  **NSMTS**

**. 23**  **The Director**  **also fo** **und that**  **because the**  **P ANYNJ**  **studied the**  **future precision**  **approach with the FAA,**  **and deter** **mined that**  **such improvements**  **are not**  **fe asible**  **due to**  **the myriad**  **of obstacles already**  **in the**  **approach to Runway**  **31, the**  **P ANYNJ** 

**1 2**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **28 1**  **3 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **28-29 14**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **It em**  **17, pa**  **ges 28-29**  **1 5**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **It em**  **17, pa**  **ge 29**  **16 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **29 1**  **7 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **29 18**  **FAA Exhi**  **bit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ges**  **29-46 1**  **9 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **17, pa**  **ge 34**  **2 °**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **It em**  **17, pa** **ge 33**  **2 1**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **It em**  **17, pa**  **ge 41**  **22 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **39 2** **3 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **41 4** **completed its**  **due diligence under the**  **grant assura** **nce. 24**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that the**  **FAA**

**studied the**  **existing ob**  **structi ons**  **and the NSMTS**  **and determined that**  **the exis** **ting mitigation**  **measure s**  **provide an**  **accepta ble**  **level of**  **safety fo** **r air**  **navigation and air opera tions**  **at LGA. 25**  **In addition,**  **the Director**  **relied on**  **FAA policy**  **when concluding the**  **FAA makes the**  **final determina** **tion on**  **matters related**  **to a** **i rspace**  **use and**  **management and**  **on saf**  **e and**  **reasonable mitigation**  **measures fo** **r obstac**  **les and**  **haza rds.**  **26 The**  **Director also**  **fo und**  **that it was**  **appropriate fo**  **r P ANYNJ**  **to have**  **relied on**  **the FAA**  **conducting an**  **ob structi**  **on evalua**  **tion of**  **the proposed**  **NSMTS on**  **three sepa**  **rate occasions,**  **and ultima**  **tely is**  **suing two**  **No Hazard**  **Determina tions.**  **2 7**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that the**  **record shows**  **that fr** **om November**  **2009 through**  **June 2010,**  **the F** **AAIU SDA**  **panel of**  **experts, on**  **which the**  **P ANY** **NJ ' s**  **Chief Wildl if**  **e Biologist**  **parti cipates,**  **conducted an**  **additional study**  **to evaluate**  **the NSMTS**  **and its compatibility with**  **respect to**  **bird strikes**  **and saf**  **e air**  **operations at**  **LGA. 2**  **8 The**  **Director fo** **und the**  **July 2,**  **2010, report**  **included findings**  **and recommendations**  **regarding the**  **NSMTS to**  **support the**  **conclusion that**  **the NSMTS**  **is neither**  **a haza** **rdous wildlif**  **e attractant**  **nor a**  **hazard to**  **air opera** 

**tions at**  **LGA. 29**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that the**  **evaluati on**  **of the**  **NSMTS went**  **beyond the**  **FAA Ob**  **structi on**  **Evalua tion**  **process to**  **include a**  **sepa rate**  **evaluation of**  **the NSMTS**  **'s compatibility**  **with respect**  **to bird**  **stri kes**  **and saf**  **e air**  **operations at**  **LGA. 30**  **The Director fo** **und that**  **the record showed that**  **the FAA**  **does not**  **consider the NSMTS**  **to be**  **a hazard** 

**. 31**  **The Director determined that**  **even if**  **the FAA considered**  **the NSMTS**  **to be**  **a hazard,**  **the City**  **of New**  **York accepted**  **the Panel**  **Repor t'**  **s recommended**  **mitigation measures**  **to enhance**  **the safety**  **of the**  **NSMTS with**  **respect to**  **air navigation**  **and air**  **operations at**  **LGA. 32**  **The Director**  **determined that**  **P AN**  **YNJ did**  **not fa** **il to**  **prevent an**  **incompatible land**  **use near**  **LGA and is in**  **complia**

**nce with Grant**  **As surance**  **21, Compati** **ble Land**  **Us e.**  **33 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **the FAA**  **does not**  **consider the**  **NSMTS to be**  **an incompatib**  **le land use;**  **that P** **ANYNJ took**  **reasona**

**ble measures**  **to prevent**  **the establishment of**  **the NSMTS**  **when the**  **FAA issued**  **its notice**  **that the**  **NSMTS was**  **presumed to**  **be a**  **hazard ;**  **parti cipated**  **in the**  **F AAIU** **SDA study**  **of the**  **NSMTS; and**  **relied on**  **the conclusions**  **reached in**  **the FAA**  **and USDA**  **evaluati ons**  **of the**  **NSMTS with**  **regard to**  **the NSMTS**  **'s compatibility**  **with safe**  **air operations**  **at LGA.**  **34 The**  **Director fo** **und Grant Assu** **rance 34**  **not applicable**  **because the**  **NSM TS**  **was not**  **fu nded**  **with AIP.**  **35 Never** 

**th eless,**  **the Di** **rector fo** **und that PANYNJ**  **exercised its**  **due diligence**  **in evaluating** 

**2 4**  **FAA Exhibi**  **t I,**  **I t em**  **17, pa** **ge 41**  **25 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **40. The**  **no ha** **zard de** **term ina** **ti ons**  **became fi**  **nal a g** **ency ac**  **ti ons,**  **and the**  **time pe**  **riod to**  **c h al**  **l en**  **ge th**  **ese de** **term ina** **ti ons**  **has ela**  **psed. 2** **6 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **40 2**  **7 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **45 2**  **8 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **45 29**  **FAA Exh**  **ibit I,**  **I t em**  **17, pa** **ge 45**  **3 °**  **FAA Exhibi**  **t I,**  **I t em**  **17, pa** **ge 46**  **31 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **46 32**  **FAA Exhibi** **t 1,**  **It em**  **17, pa** **ge 46**  **33 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **46-49 34**  **FAA Exhibi** **t I,**  **I t em**  **17, pa** **ge 49**  **35 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **I, I t** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **50 5** **the proposed NSMTS**  **had Grant**  **As sura** **nce 34,**  **Polic ies,**  **Sta nd**  **ards, and**  **Sp ec** **ificati ons**  **ap plied.**  **36 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **P ANYNJ**  **reasonably relied**  **on the**  **experti se**  **and guidance**  **provided through**  **the FAA**  **and USDA**  **determinati ons**  **and findings**  **regarding the**  **NSMTS 's**  **compatibil ity**  **with saf**  **e air**  **operations at**  **LGA. 3**  **7 The**  **Director also**  **concluded that**  **PANYNJ was**  **also made**  **aware of**  **the FA** **A's conclusions**  **regarding the**  **NSMTS, which**  **were directed**  **to the City**  **of New**  **York as**  **the pro** 



# p**onent of**  **the proj**  **ect, and**  **those conclusions**  **served as**  **the fo**  **unda tion**  **fo r**  **PANYNJ 's**  **acti ons.**  **3 The**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion**  **fo und**  **that PANYNJ exer** **cised due**  **dilige nce**  **by conside** **ring the**  **potential impact of the**  **NSMTS on**  **future airport pla**  **ns, and**  **that it**  **did not**  **un reasonably**  **deviate fr** **om its**  **app roved**  **Airport Layout Plan. The**  **Director fo** **und that**  **PANYNJ 's**  **acti ons**  **with regard**  **to the**  **existing ob**  **structi ons,**  **and the**  **NSMTS, were**  **reasonable, and**  **consi stent**  **with its**  **grant assu** **ranc e**  **obligations. 39**  **III. PARTIES**  **The Airport**  **LaGuardia Airport**  **is a public-use,**  **commercial service**  **airport loca**  **ted in**  **New York,**  **New York.**  **The airport**  **is owned**  **by the**  **City and operated**  **by the**  **Port Authority**  **pursuant to**  **Am ended**  **and Restated**  **Agre ement**  **of Lease**  **of the**  **Mu ni** **cipal Air**  **Te rminals.**  **The lease**  **agreement was**  **executed on**  **November 24,**  **2004, and**  **it is**  **between the**  **City of**  **New York**  **(les sor)**  **and the**  **Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and New**  **Jersey (lessee).**  **The airport**  **has 35**  **7,767 annual**  **aircraft operations**  **and has two 7,000**  **fo ot**  **runw ays.**  **40 The**  **planning and**  **development of**  **the Airport**  **has been**  **financ ed**  **in part**  **with funds**  **provided by**  **the FAA**  **under the**  **Air port**  **Improvement Program**  **(AlP), auth** **orized by the**  **Airport and**  **Airway Improvement**  **Act of**  **19 82,**  **as amende d,**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **101, et**  **seq. Respondent**  **The Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey ("Port Aut** **hority," "PANYNJ"**  **or "Respo**  **ndent") is**  **an Interstate**  **Compact agency pursuant**  **to Art** **icle 1,**  **Section 6**  **of the United**  **States Co**  **nstituti on.**  **The Port**  **Au thority**  **is the**  **sponsor of**  **LaGuardi a Airport (LGA).**  **41 Complainants**  **The first**  **Compla inant,**  **Kenneth D. Paskar,**  **describes himself**  **as "an**  **individual, residing**  **and working**  **in New York, New**  **York. Paskar**  **is also**  **a licensed**  **pilot and**  **aeronautical user**  **of**

**3 6**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **Item 17,**  **pa ge**  **52 37**  **FAA Exhibit**  **I ,**  **Item 17,**  **pa ge**  **51 3**  **8 FAA**  **Exhibit I**  **, Item**  **17, pa** **ge 52**  **39 FAA**  **Exhibit I**  **, Item**  **17, pa**  **ge 41**  **4° FAA**  **Exhibit I**  **, Item**  **2, Att**  **ac hme**  **nt C 41**  **FAA Exhibit I,**  **Item 1**  **6 LaGuardia**  **Airport. "**  **As a**  **user of**  **LaGuardi a Airport,**  **Mr. Paskar**  **claims to**  **be "directly**  **aff ected"**  **by the**  **Responden**

**t's alleged complia** **nce viola**  **t ions.**  **42 The**  **other Compl** **ainant, Friends**  **of LaGuardia**  **Airport, Inc.**  **(FOLA) describes**  **itself as**  **a New**  **York associa** 

**tion that**  **is being incorporated**  **as a New York nonprofit**  **corpora tion.**  **FOL A's**  **members consist**  **of individuals**  **and businesses**  **that use**  **LaGuardia Airport**  **as either**  **pass engers**  **or as**  **pilots, including**  **Mr. Paskar.**  **As aeronau**  **tical users**  **of LaGuardia**  **Airport, FOLA**  **and its**  **members (such**  **as Mr.**  **Pas kar)**  **claim to**  **be "directly**  **aff ected"**  **by the Responden**  **t's alleged**  **complia nce**  **violations. 43**  **IV. PROCEDURAL**  **HISTORY AND**  **BACKGROUND Procedural**  **History On Feb**  **ruary 1**  **2, 20**  **1 1,**  **Compl ainants**  **filed a fo**  **rmal complaint**  **and request**  **fo r investigation**  **purs uant**  **to 14**  **CFR Part**  **1 6**

**. The**  **complaint was**  **filed against**  **the City**  **of New**  **York and**  **the Respondent**  **Port Auth** **ority fo** **r allega**  **tions related**  **to the**  **cons tructi**  **on of**  **the NSMTS.**  **The compla** **int alleged**  **viola tions**  **of Grant**  **As sura** **nces 1 9**  **, 20,**  **21, and**  **34. 44**  **By letter**  **dated February**  **28, 20**  **1 1,**  **the Director**  **dismissed the**  **orig i** **n a** **l compla** **int without**  **pre ju** **dice because the**  **compla int**  **was determ**  **ined to be**  **incomplete under**  **14 CFR**  **Part 1 6** 

**. 4**  **5 Additionally,**  **the Director**  **determ ined**  **that the**  **City of**  **New York**  **is not**  **a respondent**  **in this**  **case because**  **it is**  **not the sponsor**  **of LaGuardia**  **Airport. 46**  **On April**  **18 ,**  **20 1**  **1, Comp**  **lainants filed**  **their amended**  **compla int**  **and request**  **fo r investigation**  **purs uant**  **to 14**  **CFR Part**  **1 6**

**. The**  **Amended Compla** **int was**  **again filed**  **against the**  **City of**  **New York**  **and P ANYNJ fo** **r allegations**  **related to the**  **construction of**  **the NSMTS**  **and alleging**  **vio lations**  **of Grant**  **Assu ranc**  **es 1 9**  **, 20,**  **21, and**  **34. 4**  **7 Compla**  **inants argued**  **that the**  **City should**  **be named**  **a respondent**  **in this**  **case fo** **r the**  **fo llowing**  **rea sons:**  **the fa** **cts show**  **that the**  **City is**  **the proprietor**  **of the a** **i rport;**  **by statute, the land "used**  **regularly by**  **aircraft fo** **r receiving**  **or disc** **harging passe** **ngers or**  **cargo" constitutes**  **an airport; and viewing**  **the City**  **as a**  **"nonproprietor" of**  **the airport**  **is con**  **trary to**  **FAA policy,**  **guidance and orders.**  **On May**  **25, 20**  **1 1,**  **the Director**  **is sued**  **the Partial**  **Dis missal**  **Order and Notice**  **of Doc** **keting. 4** **8 The**  **Partial Dismissal**  **Order dismissed**  **the City**  **of New**  **York from**  **the Part**  **16 proceedings,**  **ref erencing**  **the Directo** **r' s**  **dismis sal**  **letter of**  **February 28,**  **20 1 1** 

**. On July**  **1, 20**  **1 1,**  **Com plainants**  **petitioned the U.S.**  **Court of**  **Appeals fo**  **r the**  **Second Circuit**  **fo r**  **review of the**  **May 25,**  **20 1**  **1, FAA**  **Order. 49** 

**4 2**  **FAA Ex** **hibit 1,**  **Item 1**  **43 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1**  **44 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1**  **45 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **2, Att** **ac hme**  **nt A**  **4 6**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **2, Att** **ac hme**  **nt A**  **47 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **1 4** **8 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **2 49**  **FAA Ex**  **hibit 1,**  **Item 11**  **7 On**  **June 1 2**  **, 20**  **12 ,**  **via Summary**  **Order, the**  **Court agreed with**  **FA A's**  **position and**  **fo und**  **that the** 

**FA A's**  **fa ctua** **l findings**  **were supported**  **by substantial**  **evidence, and that**  **the FA** **A's application**  **of the**  **law to**  **the fa** **cts was**  **not arbitrary**  **or capricious,**  **or an**  **abuse of**  **disc reti**  **on. 50**  **The Court**  **noted that**  **"[t**

**}he Ci** **ty is**  **not a**  **signatory or**  **party to**  **the gr** **ant agre**  **eme nts,**  **nor is**  **it a**  **pro per**  **Part 16**  **'r es**  **pondent' as**  **de**

**fined in 14**  **C.F.R. §**  **16. 3,**  **as the**  **Ci ty**  **is not**  **a 's**  **ponsor, pro** 

**pri etor,**  **or op** **erat or '**  **of the**  **air**

**port. "51**  **The Court stated**  **that although**  **the City owns the**  **land upon**  **which LaGuardi**  **a sits,**  **"the Port Au**  **thori ty**  **is the**  **op erator**  **of La**  **Guard ia**  **and lea** **ses the**  **land from**  **the Ci** **ty. The**  **Ci ty**  **do es**  **not qualify as**  **a sp** **onsor under**  **the terms**  **of the**  **gr ant**  **ag reeme**  **nt, statute,**  **or regul**  **ati ons,**  **because it**  **is not**  **an agency**  **that receives**  **financial assi**  **stance from**  **the FA** **A. "52**  **On Septembe** **r 27,**  **20 1 2**  **, the**  **Direct or**  **'s Determination was**  **iss ued.**  **53 On**  **October 25,**  **20 1 2**  **, Compla** **inants filed**  **Unopposed Motion**  **fo r**  **Extension of**  **Time to**  **File Appeal**  **of D**  **irecto r**  **'s Determinati** **on. 54**  **On January**  **7, 20**  **13, Comp**  **lainants filed**  **Se cond**  **Unopposed Motion**  **fo r**  **an Extension**  **of Time**  **to File**  **Appeal. 55**  **On February**  **4, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **the FAA**  **granted Compla**  **inants '**  **Second Unopposed**  **Motion fo** **r an**  **Exte nsion**  **of Time**  **to File**  **Appeal. Compla**  **inan ts'**  **App eal**  **now was due on**  **or bef**  **ore February**  **4, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **and the**  **Respondents' Reply**  **was due**  **on or**  **bef ore**  **April 4,**  **20 13.**  **56 On**  **February 4,**  **20 1 3**  **, Comp**  **lainants filed**  **their Appeal**  **fr om**  **the D**  **i rect** **or' s**  **Determination dated**  **September 27,**  **20 1 2** 

**. 5**  **7 On**  **April 3,**  **20 1 3**  **, PANYNJ filed**  **its Reply**  **of the**  **Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and New**  **Jersey to**  **the Associa** **te Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports fr** **om Direct** **or' s**  **Determinati on.**  **5 8**  **On April**  **22, 20 13,**  **in Paskar**  **v. Uni** **ted States**  **De partm** **ent of**  **Tr ans** 

**portat ion,**  **the U.S.**  **Court of**  **Appeals fo**  **r the**  **Second Circuit**  **reviewed a letter**  **fr om**  **the FAA to**  **the City**  **of New**  **York in**  **which the**  **FAA agre**  **ed with**  **the Panel**  **Report finding that the**  **NSMTS will**  **be compatible**  **with saf e**  **air operations**  **at LGA**  **so long as**  **it is**  **constructed and**  **operated in**  **accordance with**  **the repor** **t' s**  **recommendati ons.**  **The court**  **fo und**  **that the letter**  **did not**  **cons titute**  **a final agency order with** **i n**  **the meaning of**  **45 U.S.C**  **§ 461**  **1 ( a)**  **and dismissed**  **the Compla**  **inan ts'**  **challenge to**  **the letter**  **on the**  **grounds that**  **the letter being**  **challenged did**  **not order**  **the City**  **of New York to**  **take any**  **ac tion.**  **59**

**5° FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 11**  **51 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **11 5**  **2 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, Item**  **11 53**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **Item 17**  **54 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, Item**  **18 55**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **Item 19 5** **6 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, Item**  **20 5**  **7 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, Item**  **21 5** **8 FAA**  **Exhibit 1**  **, Item**  **22 59**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1 ,**  **Item 23,**  **ex hibit**  **B (see**  **also ,**  **Do cket**  **No . l**  **0-46 12**  **( 2 d**  **Cir**

**. Ap**  **r. 22**  **, 20**  **13 ))**  **8 On June**  **1, 20**  **13, Compla**  **inants filed**  **a Motion**  **fo r**  **Reconsid erati**  **on or Remand**  **of the**  **Directo r**  **'s Determination**  **of Se** **ptember 27, 20**  **12 ,**  **in light**  **of the**  **holding in**  **Pas kar**  **v. U**  **S. De partm** **ent of**  **Tr ans**  **portat ion.** **60 On**  **June 1 3**  **, 20**  **13, PANYNJ**  **filed its**  **Opposition to**  **Compl ainan**  **ts' Motion**  **fo r**  **Recons iderati**  **on or**  **Remand. 6**  **1 On June**  **28, 20**  **13, the**  **FAA iss** **ued a Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of the**  **Final Agency**  **Decision t** **o October**  **1 1 ,**  **20 13.**  **62 On**  **October 1 5**  **, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **the FAA iss** **ued a**  **Notice of**  **Ext ension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of the**  **Final Agency Decision**  **t o**  **January 9, 20**  **14. 63**  **On January**  **1 4 ,**  **20 14**  **, the**  **FAA iss** **ued a**  **Notice of**  **Extension of**  **Time fo** **r is**  **suance of**  **the Final**  **Agency Decision**  **t o**  **Apri l**  **4, 20**  **1 4**

**. 64**  **On July**  **22, 20**  **14 ,**  **the FAA**  **issued a**  **Notice of**  **Exten sion**  **of Time fo** **r is**  **suance of**  **the Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to Dece** **mber 5,**  **20 1 4** 

**. 65**  **On Dece** **mber 1 7**  **, 20**  **14 ,**  **the FAA**  **iss ued**  **a Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of the**  **Final Agency**  **Decision t** **o Febr** **uary 27, 20**  **15. 66**  **On January**  **7, 20**  **1 5 ,**  **Comp lainants**  **filed Motion**  **to Supplement**  **Record and**  **Amend Appeal.**  **6 7**  **On January**  **28, 20**  **1 5 ,**  **Respondent filed Opposition**  **to Complainants'**  **Motion to**  **Suppleme nt**  **Record and**  **Amend Appeal**  **and sep** **arate Motion**  **to Supplement**  **Record and**  **Amend Reply.**  **6 8**  **On March 25,**  **20 1 5**  **, the**  **FAA iss** **ued a**  **Notice of**  **Exten sion**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of the**  **Final Agency**  **Decision to**  **June 1 9**  **, 20**  **1 5**

**. 69**  **On April**  **3, 20**  **1 5 ,**  **City of**  **New York**  **and Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey**  **submitted a**  **Change of**  **Addre ss.** **7 0** 

**6° FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 23**  **6 1**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **24 6**  **2 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **25 6** **3 FAA**  **Exhi bi** **t 1,**  **Item 26**  **6 4**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **27 6** **5 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 28**  **66 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **29 6**  **7 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **30 68**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1. Ite**  **m 31**  **69 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Ite**  **m 32**  **7° FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **33 9** **Factual Background** 

**On N**  **ovembe r**  **1 0 ,**  **2004, the FAA**  **received a**  **Notice of**  **Proposed Cons** **tr uction**  **or Alteration**  **(Form 7460-**  **1) from**  **the Depa**  **rtment of**  **Sanitati on**  **ofNew York**  **(DSNY), in**  **which DSNY**  **indicated its**  **plans to**  **co nstruct the**  **Nor th**  **Shore Marine**  **Transf er**  **Stati on.**  **The proposal**  **described the**  **loca tion of**  **the fac**  **ility as**  **North Shore**  **Marine Transf**  **er Sta**  **tion Nor**  **th of**  **3 1 st**  **Avenue Wes** **t of**  **12 2**  **"d Street. The**  **proposal lis** **ted the**  **coordinates of**  **the fa** **cility as**  **Latitude 40°**  **46' 1 5**  **.3 5"N**  **and Longitude**  **73° 50'**  **57 .49"W,**  **and indicated**  **a total**  **height of**  **1 1 0**  **fe et**  **(AMSL). The**  **proposal was**  **assigned Aeronau** 

**t ic** **a l**  **Study No.**  **200 4-AEA** **-3 1 5**  **9 -0E.**  **71 On**  **January 28,**  **2005, the**  **FAA iss** **ued its**  **determination of** **Presumed Hazard**  **fo r**  **Aeronau tical**  **Study No.**  **2004- AEA** **-3 1**  **59-0E. The determina**  **tion stated**  **that :**  **The initial** **findings of** **this stud**  **y indicated**  **that the structure**  **as de** **scribed ab**  **ove wo**  **uld exce**  **ed obstruction**  **stand ards**  **an d/or**  **would have**  **an adverse**  **phys ical**  **or electroma**  **gn etic**  **inter f**  **erence eff** 

**ect up** **on navi** 

**gable ai** **rs**

**pace or**  **air navigation**  **fa cilities.**  **The re**  **f ore,**  **pending re** **solution of**  **the issues**  **de scribed**  **below, it**  **is here** **by de** **te rmined**  **that the**  **structure is**  **pr esumed**  **to be**  **a hazard**  **to air**  **navig ation**  **. 7**  **2 On**  **May 9,**  **20 05,**  **Mr. Tom**  **Boc k,**  **Port Auth** **ority 's**  **General Manager**  **fo r**  **Airspace Modernization,**  **Techno logy**  **& Operational**  **Enha ncement,**  **sent a**  **letter to**  **Mr. Robert Alexander,**  **Obst ruc** **tion Evaluation**  **Specialist fo** **r the**  **FAA, obj**  **ecting to**  **the constructi on**  **of the**  **NSMTS. In**  **Mr. Boc** **k's letter,**  **he indicated**  **that :**  **We have**  **revi ewed**  **the do**  **cumentation regarding**  **the pro**  **posed Ne**  **w Yo**  **rk City**  **Sa nitation**  **Tr ans** 

**fe r**  **St ation**  **in Fl** **ushin**

**g, Ne** **w Yo** **rk and**  **have de**  **t ermined**  **that it**  **will have a**  **significant im**  **pact to**  **the ope**  **rations at**  **LaG uardia**  **Ai rp** **ort. Th** **is structur** **e is**  **locat**

**ed onl**  **y 2206f**  **eetfrom Run** **wa**

**y 13** **/3 I,**  **which is**  **one of**  **the busiest**  **runwa ys**  **in the**  **world. At its**  **pro posed**  **height it**  **exce ed** 

**s by**  **over 40**  **fe et,**  **not onl**  **y the**  **40: I**  **sur**

**fa ce**  **but the 34: I sur** 

**fa ce**  **as well** 

**.... The**  **FA A**  **re qui** **res air** 

**port ope**  **rators to**  **re**

**frai n**  **from buil** 

**ding any**  **ob**

**je ct**  **in the**  **Runwa y**  **Pro t**  **ection Zo** **ne. Th**  **is bu**  **ilding is**  **not on**  **air port**  **pro perty,**  **but it**  **is cl** **earl**

**y insid**  **e the RPZ. 73**  **On September**  **1 8,**  **2006, the**  **FAA completed**  **its fu** **rther study**  **of the**  **NSMTS and**  **iss ued**  **a Determina** 

**tion ofN** **o Hazard to Air**  **Naviga ti**  **on fo** **r Aeronau** 

**tical Study**  **No. 2004-AEA** **-3 1**  **59-0E. The**  **Determination letter**  **sta tes**  **that :**  **Th is**  **ae ronautical**  **stud**

**y re**  **veale d that the**  **structur e**  **would have no substantial**  **adve rse**  **eff**

**ect on the sa** 

**fe and**  **eff icient**  **utilization of**  **navi gable**  **ai rs** 

**pace by**  **aircra**

**ft or on the**  **ope ration**  **of air**  **navig ation**  **fa cilities.**  **The ref** 

**ore, pursuant**  **to the**  **authority**

**71 FAA**  **Exhibit I,**  **Item 3,**  **Ex hibit**  **C 7**  **2 FAA**  **Exhibit I,**  **Item I,**  **exhibit 7 73**  **FAA Exhibit**  **I, Item**  **I, ex**  **hibit 8**  **10 de**  **legated to**  **me, it**  **is hereb**  **y de**  **termined that**  **the structure**  **wo uld**  **not be**  **a hazard to air**  **navig ation**  **provided the**  **fo llowing**  **condition (s)**  **is (a** **re) met:**  **As a**  **condition to**  **this Determination,**  **the structure**  **is marked**  **and/ or**  **ligh ted**  **in accordance**  **with FA** **A Advisor**  **y Circular**  **70**

**1746 0-1**  **K Change**  **1, Obstruction**  **Marking and**  **Lightin**

**g, red**  **lights- Cha** 

**pters 4,**  **5, (R**  **ed**

**), &**  **12**

**. Th**  **is de**  **termination becomes final**  **on Oct** **ober 28,**  **2006 unless a**  **petition is**  **timel y**  **filed. In**  **which case,**  **this de**  **termination will**  **not become**  **final pe**  **nding dis**  **position of**  **the petition.**  **7 4**  **On October 1 7**  **, 2006,**  **the Port**  **Authority filed a**  **Petition with**  **the FAA**  **fo r a**  **review of**  **the Determination**  **of No**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigation**  **fo r**  **Aeronautical Study**  **No. 200** **4-AEA-3 1 5**  **9- 0E.**  **7s In**  **January 2007,**  **the Cit** **y's Depa**  **rtment of**  **Sa**

**nitation (DSNY)**  **released its**  **Comprehensive Waste**  **Management Pla** **n. The**  **plan addre**  **ssed DS** **NY's long-term**  **exporta tion**  **and dispo**  **sal of**  **municipal solid**  **waste fr** **om New**  **York City,**  **which included**  **the refur**  **bishm ent**  **of fo**  **ur closed**  **transfer sta**  **tions that**  **were previously**  **operated by**  **the City.**  **The NSMTS,**  **loca ted**  **in the College**  **P oin** 

**t section**  **of Queens,**  **was one**  **of the**  **fo ur**  **proposed fac** **ilities to**  **be ref**  **ur bished.**  **7 6**  **On Febr** **uary 28,**  **2007, Mr.**  **Tom Bock, the**  **Port Authority**  **'s General**  **Manager fo** **r Airspace**  **Modernization, Technology &**  **Operational Enhancement, sent**  **a letter**  **to the**  **FA A's**  **Airspace and**  **Rules Branch**  **withdrawing its**  **petition concerning**  **2004-AEA-3 1 5**  **9 -0E.**  **The letter**  **state s:**  **Af ter**  **dis cuss**  **ions bet** **ween the**  **New Yo** **rk City**  **De partm** **ent of** **Sa nitation**  **and the**  **Port Au** **thority of** **NY &**  **NJ, we were able**  **to clarify**  **the sp** **ecific corner**  **point s**  **of the**  **buil ding,**  **allowing us**  **the op**  **portunity fo**  **r a more**  **de tailed**  **review of**  **the potential**  **im**

**pacts. In**  **addi tion,**  **the De**  **partm ent**  **of Sa** **nitation was**  **able to**  **redesign the**  **buil ding**  **hi gh**  **point to**  **a height**  **of 100.**  **06. As**  **a result**  **of this**  **new inf**  **ormation, we**  **have de**  **t ermined**  **that, the**  **bu ilding**  **is now located**  **out**

**side the**  **RPZ and**  **out**

**side the**  **ICA O**  **de**

**parture sp** **lay. Th** **e redes**  **ign ed**  **hei ght**  **also puts the structure**  **below the slo**  **pe of** **the existing**  **buil**

**dings, no**  **longer making**  **it the**  **cont**

**rolling obstruction.**  **Based on**  **the new**  **hei**

**ght and**  **anal**

**ysis, there**  **will not**  **be an**  **im pact**  **to aircra** 

**ft op** **erations at LaG** **uardia Ai** **rp ort**  **if the**  **buil ding**  **is constructed**  **as descr**  **ibed above.**  **77**

**74 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **ex hibit**  **9 7**  **5 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **ex hibit**  **10 76**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **1, ex** **hibit 5**  **77 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **ex hibit**  **13 11** **The new**  **coordinates and amended elevation**  **fo r**  **the building**  **'s high**  **point were**  **subsequently**

**assig ned**  **Aero n** **au**

**t i**  **cal Study No**  **.'s 200**  **7-AEA- 1 1**  **63- 0E,**  **and the**  **FAA be**  **gan evaluating**  **the pr** **oposal. The**  **DSNY is**  **identified as**  **the proponent**  **of the**  **proposal. 78**  **On March**  **1 2 ,**  **2007, Mr.**  **John Dermody with the FA** **A's New**  **York Airports**  **Di strict**  **Of fice**  **(NY ADO)**  **sent an e-mail to**  **Mr. Robert**  **Alexander, FAA**  **Obst ruc** **tion Evaluation**  **Specialist, regarding**  **Aeronautical Study**  **No. 200**  **7-AEA- 1 1**  **63- 0E.**  **The message**  **inquired whether**  **"the [Flight**  **Procedures Of** 

**fi ce**  **(FPO)] was**  **taking the**  **future LGA**  **RW 31**  **ILS into**  **accou nt**  **during their**  **ana lysis."**  **7 9**  **On March**  **23, 2007,**  **M r**  **. Robert**  **Alexander, sent**  **an e-mail**  **to Mr.**  **Don Krager,**  **with the**  **FA A's**  **Eastern FPO**  **with regard**  **to Aeronautical Study**  **No. 2007**  **-AEA**

**- 1**  **1 63** 

**- 0E.**  **This message**  **inquired about**  **the lowest**  **decision height possible**  **fo r**  **the proposed**  **ILS approach,**  **in compar** **i son**  **to the**  **lowest decision**  **height if**  **the proposed**  **fa cil**  **ity was**  **cons truct** **ed. Mr.**  **Don Krager**  **responded that**  **: The**  **lowest DA would**  **be 200**  **ft. If**  **the obst**  **acle were to**  **be bui** **lt the**  **IL S**  **ap proach**  **would be**  **de nied**  **since you**  **cannot adj** **ust the DA on**  **pro posed**  **obst**

**acl es.**  **An d**  **I' m**  **sure they**  **are not**  **going to**  **raise the**  **[g lid**  **e slo**  **pe] or**  **dis**

**place the**  **thr eshold**  **base d**  **on a**  **pro posed**  **ob stacle** 

**. 80**  **On Febr**  **uary 20,**  **2008, Mr.**  **Edward Skyler, New**  **York City Deputy Mayor**  **fo r**  **Opera ti**  **ons, sent a**  **letter to Mr.**  **Anthony Shorri**  **s, Executive**  **Director of**  **the Port**  **Aut hority.**  **Mr. Skyle** **r's letter**  **state d:**  **The De** 

**partme nt**  **of Sa** **nitation (DSNY** **) initiat** **ed this**  **process in**  **2004 with**  **the filing**  **of a**  **No tice**  **of Pro** 

**pose d**  **Const ruction or**  **Al te** **ration (F**  **orm 7**  **46 0-1**  **) and**  **re ceived**  **a No**  **Haz ard**  **De t** 

**erm ination**  **on Sep** **te mber**  **18 ,**  **2006. On**  **October 17** 

**, 2006, the Port**  **Au thority** **file d a**  **petition with**  **the FA** **A, see**  **king to**  **reverse that**  **de t** **erm ination**  **based on**  **concerns regarding**  **impacts the**  **MTS structure**  **might have**  **had on**  **flight ope**  **rations at**  **LaG uardia**  **Ai rp** **ort. To**  **addre ss**  **this concern,**  **the City**  **agr eed**  **to red**  **esi gn**  **the MT** 

**S, at**  **an estimated**  **cost of**  **$2 million, to**  **reduce its**  **maxim um**  **he igh** **t by**  **12 fe**  **et. The**  **Port Au**  **thority agre**  **ed that**  **the red**  **esi gne**  **d MTS**  **do es**  **not have**  **any negative**  **impacts on**  **runwa y**  **ope rations**  **at LaGua** **rdia, and**  **wit hd**  **re w**  **its petition**  **to reverse**  **the FA** **A 's**  **No Haz** **ard De**  **t ermination.**  **Fo llowing**  **this agr** **eement, the**  **Port Au** **thority sur**  **prise d**  **the City**  **by subm**  **itting a**  **le tte**  **r to the FA** **A on**  **July 2,**  **2007, (a**  **tt ached**  **as Exh**  **ibit C)**  **indicating th** **at as**  **part of**  **its long**  **te rm**  **plan, it**  **ma y**  **see k**  **to install**  **a Cat** 

**egor y**  **II In**  **st rument**  **Land ing**  **Sy s** **te m**  **(IL S)**  **on Run** **way 31.**  **Fo llowing**  **this submi**  **ssion, the**  **FA A**  **notified the**  **City that**  **the No** **rth Shore**  **MTS could**  **adve rse**  **ly aff**  **ect the**  **install**

**ation of** **a Cat** 

**egor y**  **II ILS,**  **and since**  **that time**  **we have**  **active ly**  **en gage**  **d the**  **Port Au**  **thority and**  **the FA** **A**

**78 FAA**  **Exhibit 1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **22 79**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **14 8°**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **15 12** **to work**  **-out a**  **resolution that**  **will enable**  **the City to move**  **fo rward**  **with this critical** **fa cility.**  **Our ex**  **perts '**  **anal**

**ysis concl** **udes that**  **the No**  **rth Shore**  **MTS, as**  **curren tl**  **y de** **sign ed**  **will not**  **ad**

**ver sel**  **y affe**  **ct the**  **exi**

**sting inst** **rument ap** 

**proach proced** 

**ures on**  **Runwa y**  **31. Mo**  **reover the**  **anal ysis**  **conc ludes**  **that with**  **slight adjustments**  **to the**  **op erational**  **range of**  **the No** **rth Sh** **ore MTS**  **'s west**  **gan try**  **crane, which**  **the City is**  **willing to**  **make, the**  **Port Au** **thority can**  **install a**  **Categor y I**  **IL S**  **at Runwa** 

**y 31,**  **which will**  **result in**  **immed iate**  **and substantial**  **imp roveme**  **nts to**  **air**

**port op** **erations. Our**  **anal**

**ysis also**  **shows that**  **establishing a**  **Categor y**  **II ILS**  **on Runwa**  **y 31**  **curren tly**  **app ears**  **in f**  **easible due**  **to the**  **alread y-existing**  **obstacle environme**  **nt, and**  **a number**  **of other**  **technical iss**  **ues (s** **ee Te**  **chnical Me**  **morandum at**  **page 13** 

**). Wh**  **ile the**  **No rth**  **Shore MT**  **S would**  **add to**  **the obstacle**  **environme nt,**  **it would**  **not be the**  **contro lling**  **obstruction, nor**  **is it**  **like ly**  **th at**  **alread y-exis**  **ting obstructions**  **could be add**  **ressed and**  **other technical**  **issues resolved**  **in a**  **reasonable time**  **frame, if** **at all.**  **81 On**  **May 29,**  **2008, Mr.**  **Tom Bock,**  **Port Authority**  **'s General**  **Manager fo**  **r Airspace**  **Modernization, Technology &**  **Operational Enhancement,**  **sent a**  **letter to**  **Mr. Robert**  **Alexander, FAA**  **Obstruction E**  **valuat i**  **on Specialist,**  **resci nding**  **the Port**  **Authority 's**  **request fo** **r a CAT**  **II approach**  **fo r**  **runway 31.**  **Mr. Boc** **k's letter**  **sta tes**  **that: To**  **assure that**  **our anal** 

**ysis was**  **accurate, we**  **enlisted the**  **assistan ce**  **of the**  **FA A**  **Fligh t**  **Proced ures**  **Offi ce**  **in At**  **lanta (A**  **VN)**

**....**

**In summ** **ary, FA** **A anal** 

**ys es**  **revealed that**  **a CA**  **T II**  **ap proach**  **to LG** 

**A Runwa**  **y 31 is im**

**practical based**  **on the**  **my riad**  **of obstructions**  **that plague**  **the No** **rthern Qu** **eens landsca**  **pe. Based**  **on the**  **results of** **these FA** **A studies**  **and the**  **studies perf**  **ormed by**  **the City**  **of Ne**  **w Yo**  **rk, it**  **is the**  **plan of**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **to continue**  **to pursue**  **an IL** **S ap**  **proach to**  **Runwa**

**y 31 at**  **LGA. Ho**  **wever, our**  **best course**  **of action**  **is to utilize**  **an offset localizer**  **and de**  **ve lop**  **a glid**  **es/o pe**  **angle of**  **3. 1**  **deg**

**rees to**  **obt**

**ain a**  **Decision He**  **ight of**  **280 HA**  **T with a RVR**  **of 5,**  **000. Th**  **is will**  **allow op** **erations on**  **Runwa y**  **31 at**  **lower minimums**  **than we**  **have to**  **day and**  **also increase**  **safety within**  **the existing**  **obst acle**  **environme nt.**  **82 On**  **Septembe r**  **1 9 ,**  **2008, the**  **FAA issued**  **a Deter**  **minati on**  **of No Hazard to**  **Air Navigation**  **fo r**  **the NSMTS,**  **Aeronaut ical**  **Study No.**  **2007- AEA-**  **1 1 63**  **-0E, sub**  **je ct**  **to the**  **fo llow** 

**ing condition:**  **An y**  **height exce**  **eding 100**  **fe et**  **above gro**  **und level**  **(1 00**  **fe et**  **above mean**  **sea level**  **), will**  **result in**  **a substantial**  **ad verse**  **eff ect**  **and wo**  **uld warrant**  **a Determination**  **of Haz** **ard to**  **Ai r**  **Na vig** 

**ation. The FAA**  **provided the**  **fo llowing**  **basis fo** **r its decision:** 

**81 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **exhibit 17**  **82 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **exh ibit**  **20 13** **Af ter**  **a com plete**  **review of**  **the aeronautical**  **stud y**  **within the**  **FA A,**  **it was**  **de cided**  **that no**  **cur rent**  **VF R or**  **IFR op** **erations wo**  **uld be**  **impa cted**  **by the**  **pro posal**  **and that**  **there is**  **no cum**  **ulative im** 

**pact resulting**  **from the**  **pro posal**  **when comb**  **ined with the**  **im pact**  **of other**  **existing or**  **pro**

**posed structures.**  **8 3**  **On October**  **24, 2008,**  **the FAA**  **issued a Determination of**  **No Hazard to**  **Air Navigati** **on fo** **r the**  **NSMTS West**  **Gantry Crane**  **, Aeronautical**  **Study No** 

**. 200**  **7-AEA- 1 1**  **69-0E, subj**  **ect to**  **the fo**  **llowing condi** **t i**  **on: An**  **y hei**  **ght exceed** 

**ing 97** **fe et**  **above gr** **ound level**  **(9 7** **fe et**  **above mean sea**  **level ),**  **will result**  **in a**  **substantial ad**  **verse effe**  **ct and**  **would warrant**  **a Determination**  **of Ha** **zard to**  **Ai r**  **Naviga tion.**  **84 On**  **June 1 0**  **, 2009,**  **Mr. William**  **Flanagan, Manager**  **of the**  **FA A's**  **Eastern Region Airports**  **Division, sent a**  **letter to**  **Mr. Harry**  **Szarpa nski,**  **DSNY Deputy**  **Commissioner. The**  **letter indicate**  **s in part:**  **the FAA**  **reviewed the**  **U. S.**  **Depa rtment**  **of Agriculture**  **(USDA) letter**  **of June**  **4, 2009;**  **the FAA**  **confirmed that the**  **NSMTS is outside**  **of the**  **RPZ fo** **r LGA;**  **the NSMTS**  **can be an**  **exam ple**  **of how**  **a fully**  **enclosed trash**  **transf er**  **station and**  **an airport**  **can opera**  **te in close**  **proximity while**  **being compatible**  **with safe**  **aircraft opera**  **tions; USDA**  **Wildlif**

**e Se** **rvices (WS)**  **believed that**  **the proposed NSMTS**  **will not**  **cause hazardous**  **wildlif e**  **movements within the**  **LGA airspace**  **if DSNY**  **fo llows**  **the operating procedures**  **recommended in**  **the letter; DSNY**  **established operating**  **procedures fo** **r the**  **NSMTS; USDA**  **WS deter** **mined that**  **the NSMTS**  **is not**  **inherently in**  **conflict with**  **safe operati**  **ons at**  **LGA provided**  **that certain**  **recommendations are**  **met. 8**  **5 On**  **July 9,**  **2009, Mr.**  **Harry Sza**  **rpans ki,**  **DSNY Depu** 

**ty Commissi**  **oner, responded**  **to the**  **FA A's**  **Eastern Region**  **Airports Division.**  **Conc urring**  **with the**  **FA A's**  **conclusion that**  **the NSMTS**  **"is not**  **inherently in**  **conflict with**  **saf e**  **aircraft operations**  **" at**  **LGA and**  **agreeing to**  **implement the**  **FA A's**  **recommendati ons.**  **8 6**  **On February**  **2, 20**  **1 0 , the**  **FAA released its**  **final report**  **"Eval uati**  **on of**  **Trash-Transf er**  **Facilities as**  **Bird Attractant**  **s. "**  **The study**  **'s obj**  **ectives were**  **to document**  **wildlif e**  **use of**  **trash-tran sf** 

**er fa**  **c ilities**  **and to determine if**  **the fa** **cil ity**  **design or**  **on-si te**  **management practices influence**  **the fa** **c ilit** **y's attracti** **veness to**  **wildlif e**  **species. 87**  **On April**  **23, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **the FAA/** **USDA panel**  **iss ued**  **its draft**  **report "Evaluati**  **on of the**  **North Sho** **r e**  **Marine Transf** 

**er Station**  **and its Compatibility**  **with Respect**  **to Bird**  **Strikes and Saf**  **e Air**  **Opera tions**  **at LaGuardi**  **a Airpor** **t." 88**  **The draft report**  **was made**  **avai lable**  **fo r**  **public comment.** 

**83 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **1, ex**  **hibit 22**  **8 4**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **23 8** **5 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **1, ex** **hibit 27**  **86 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **1, ex** **hibit 28**  **87 FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, It**  **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **29 88**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **6 14** **On September**  **2, 20 1 0**  **, the**  **FAA and the**  **USDA iss** **ued their**  **jo int,**  **final report**  **regarding the** 

**NSM TS** 

**. Sec** **tion 3 .**  **7 "Determi**  **nati on**  **of Findings"**  **state s:**  **Th e**  **technical panel**  **de termined**  **that Al**  **ternativ e**  **3, the**  **{NSM TS]**  **with changes**  **to bu**  **ilding de** **sign and**  **op erational**  **procedures and**  **the im**  **plementation of** **an integrated wil** **dl if** 

**e hazard**  **manag ement**  **plan and**  **program, will**  **most likel**  **y prov**  **ide the**  **sa**

**f est,**  **most acce** 

**ptable alternative.**  **Th is**  **alternative would**  **gr eatl**  **y reduce**  **the risk**  **of a**  **bird strike as**  **compared to**  **the present**  **situation (n**  **o MTS**  **fa cil** **ity )**  **and the**  **No rth**  **Sh ore**  **MT S**  **as pro**  **posed under the**  **Part 360**  **ap plicat** **ion. 89**  **On September**  **3, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **in a**  **letter from**  **Mr. Harry**  **Szarpa nski,**  **DSNY Depu**  **ty Commission** **er responds**  **to Mr.**  **Michael O'**  **Donnell, Director,**  **FAA Airport**  **Sa fe** **ty and**  **Standar ds,**  **the DSNY**  **agreed with**  **the panel**  **repor t'**  **s conclusion**  **and a**  

# ff**reed to**  **implement the**  **pan el's**  **recommen dati**  **ons fo** **r construction**  **and operation**  **of the**  **NSMTS. 9**  **V. APPLICABLE**  **FEDERAL LAW**  **AND FAA**  **POLICY The**  **Federal role**  **in civil**  **av iation**  **has been augmented**  **by vari ous**  **legisla tive**  **acti ons**  **that aut** **horize programs**  **fo r**  **providing Federal**  **funds and**  **other assistance**  **to local**  **communiti es**  **fo r**  **the development**  **of airport**  **fa cilities.**  **In each**  **such program,**  **the airport**  **sponsor assumes**  **certain obli**  **gat ions,**  **either by**  **contract or**  **by restrictive**  **coven ants**  **in property deeds and**  **conveyance instrumen** 

**ts, to**  **maintain and operate**  **its airport**  **fa c**  **ilities saf**  **ely and**  **ef**

**ficie ntly**  **and in**  **accordance with**  **specified conditions. Commitments**  **assumed by**  **airport sponsors**  **in property**  **conveyance or**  **grant agreements are**  **impo rtant**  **fa ctors**  **in maintaining**  **a high**  **degree of**  **saf ety**  **and ef** 

**ficiency in airport**  **design, const** **ructi on,**  **operation and**  **maintenanc e,**  **as well**  **as ensuring**  **the public**  **fa ir**  **and reasonable access**  **t o the**  **airport. Title**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **101, et**  **seq., provides**  **fo r**  **Federal air port**  **financial assi**  **stance fo**  **r the**  **development of**  **public-use air**  **ports under**  **the Airport**  **Improvement Program**  **(AlP) established**  **by the Airport and Airway Improvement**  **Act of**  **19 82,**  **as amen** **ded. Title**  **49 U.S.**  **C. §**  **47 1**  **07, et**  **se q.,**  **sets fo**  **rth assurances**  **to which**  **an airport**  **sponsor agrees**  **as a**  **condition of**  **receiving Federal**  **financ ial**  **assi sta** **nce. Upon**  **acceptance of**  **an AlP**  **grant ,**  **the assu** **ranc es**  **become a**  **binding co** **ntractual obli**  **gati on**  **between the**  **airport sponsor and**  **the Federal Government.**  **The assuranc**  **es made**  **by airport**  **sponsors in AlP**  **grant agreements**  **are import** **ant fa** **ctors in**  **maintaining a**  **viab l**  **e na**  **tional airport**  **system. Airport sponsors,**  **who accept**  **a grant,**  **also accept**  **conditions and**  **obli ga**  **tions associa** 

**ted with**  **the grant**  **assura nces.**  **These include**  **39 specifically**  **delinea ted**  **obli gati**  **ons such**  **as operating and maintaining the airport**  **in a safe**  **and serviceable condition, not**  **granting exclusive**  **righ**

**ts, mitigating**  **hazards to**  **airspace, and using**  **airport revenue**  **proper ly.**  **Airport Sponsor**  **Assurances As**  **a condition**  **to providing airport**  **developme nt**  **assis tance**  **under the**  **Airport Improvement**  **Program, 49**  **U.S.C. §**  **47 1**  **07, et**  **seq. , the**  **Sec retary**  **of Tran** **sportation and,**  **by extension,**  **the FAA**  **must receive**  **certain assurances**  **from the**  **airport sponsor.**  **Section 47**  **1 0 7**  **(a) sets**  **fo rth**  **the**

**89 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **exhibit 35**  **9° FAA**  **Exhibit 1, Item**  **1, exhibit**  **38 15** **statutory sponsorship**  **requirements to which an**  **airport sponsor**  **receiving Federal**  **financial**

**assi stance**  **must agree.**  **The FAA**  **has a**  **statutory mandate**  **to ensure**  **that airport**  **owners comply**  **with these**  **sponsor assuranc**  **es. 91**  **FAA Order 5 1**  **90.68, FA** **A Ai** **rp ort**  **Com pliance**  **Ma nual,**  **provides the**  **policies and**  **procedures to**  **be fo**  **llowed by**  **the FAA**  **in carrying**  **out its**  **legis latively**  **mandated fu**  **nctions related**  **to fe** **derally obliga** 

**t ed**  **airport owners' complia**  **nce with**  **their sponsor**  **assu ranc**  **es. The**  **FAA considers**  **it inappropriate**  **to provide**  **Federal assi**  **stance fo** **r improvement**  **to airports**  **where the**  **benefits of**  **such improvements**  **will not**  **be fully realized**  **due to**  **inherent restrictions**  **on aeronau**  **tical activ** **itie s.**  **The grant**  **assu ranc**  **es raised**  **on appeal**  **are Grant**  **As surance**  **5, Preserving**  **Rights and**  **Power s;**  **Grant As**  **surance 1 9**  **, Op** **eration and**  **Ma intenance;**  **Grant As**  **surance 20,**  **Haz ard**  **Mi tiga** **tion and**  **Remov al;**  **Grant As**  **surance 21,**  **Com patible**  **Land Use;**  **and Grant**  **As suranc**  **e 34,**  **Po licies,**  **Standards, and**  **Sp ecifications.**  **Grant Assurance**  **5, Preserving**  **Rights and**  **Powers Grant**  **As surance**  **5, Preserving**  **Rights and**  **Powers, implements the provisions of**  **the Airport and**  **Airway Improvement**  **Act (AAIA),**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **1 07(a** **) and**  **requires, in**  **pertinent part,**  **that the**  **sponsor of**  **a fe** **dera lly-obl**  **igated airp** **ort: will**  **not take**  **or permit**  **an y**  **action which**  **wo uld**  **op erate**  **to de**  **prive it**  **of any**  **of the**  **rights and**  **powers neces** **sary to**  **per fo** **rm any**  **or all**  **of the**  **terms, conditions,**  **and ass**  **urances in**  **the grant**  **ag reement**  **without the**  **written ap**  **proval of**  **the Secreta** **ry, and will act**  **prom ptl**  **y to**  **acquire, extinguish**  **or modify any**  **out standing**  **rights or**  **claims of** **right of**  **others which**  **would inter** 

**fe re**  **with such performance**  **by the**  **sp onsor.**  **Th is**  **shall be**  **do ne**  **in a**  **manner acce**  **ptable to**  **the Secre**  **tary. Grant**  **Assurance 19** **, Operation**  **and Maintenance**  **Grant As**  **surance 19**  **, Opera**  **tion and Maintena** 

**nce, implements**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **1 0 7(a)(7),**  **and requires,**  **in pertinent**  **part, that**  **the sponsor**  **of a**  **fe deral**  **ly-obli gated**  **airport assure:** 

**a. Th**  **e air** 

**port and**  **all fa** **cilities which**  **are neces** **sar y**  **to serve the**  **aeronautical users**  **of the**  **air port,**  **other than**  **fa cilities**  **owned or**  **cont rolled**  **by the**  **Uni ted**  **Sta tes,**  **shall be**  **op erated**  **at all**  **times in**  **a sa** 

**fe and**  **serviceable condition**  **and in**  **accordance with**  **the minimum**  **stand ards**  **as ma** 

**y be**  **required or**  **prescr ibed**  **by ap**  **plicable Fede** **ral, state,**  **and local**  **age ncies**  **fo r**  **maintenance and**  **op eration.**  **It will**  **not cause**  **or permit**  **any activity**  **or action**  **thereon which**  **would inter**  **fe re**  **with its**  **use fo**  **r air** 

**port pur**  **poses. It**  **will suitabl** 

**y op** **erate and**  **maintain the air**  **port and**  **all fa** **cilities there**  **on or**  **connect ed**  **therewith, with due**  **regard to**  **climatic and**  **flood conditions.**  **An**

**y pro**  **posal to tem** 

**poraril y**  **close the** 

**9 1**  **See, e.g.,**  **Federal Av**  **iation Act**  **of 1958,**  **as amended**  **and r e**  **codified, 49**  **U.S .C.**  **§§ 40101,**  **401 13,**  **401 14,**  **46104, 46105,**  **46106, 46110;**  **and the**  **Airp ort**  **and Airway**  **Improvement Act**  **of 1982,**  **as amended**  **and recodified,**  **49 U .**  **S.C. §§**  **47105(d), 47106(d),**  **47107(k), 47107**  **(1), 47**  **111(d), 47122.**  **16 air** 

**port fo** **r non-aeronaut** **ical pur**  **poses must**  **first be**  **ap**

**proved by**  **the Se**  **cretar**

**y. In**  **fu rtherance**  **of this**  **assurance, the**  **sp onsor**  **will have**  **in eff**  **ect arran**  **gements fo** **r: (I)**  **Op erating**  **the air** 

**port 's**  **aeronautical fa** **cilities whenever**  **required ,·**  **(2) Prom**  **ptl y**  **marking and**  **ligh ting haza** **rds resulting** **from air**  **port cond** 

**itions, incl** **uding tem** 

**porar y**  **conditions; and,**  **(3) Prom**  **ptl y**  **notifYing airmen of** **any condition**  **aff ecting**  **aeronautical use**  **of the**  **air port.**  **No thing**  **contained herein shall**  **be construed**  **to requi** **re that**  **the air port be**  **op erated** **fo r**  **aeronautical use**  **during tem**  **porar y periods**  **when snow,**  **flo od, or**  **other climatic**  **conditions inter**  **fe re**  **with such**  **op eration**  **and maintenance.**  **Furth er,**  **nothing herein shall**  **be construed**  **as requ**  **iring the**  **maintenance, re**  **pair, restoration,**  **or re** 

**plac ement**  **of any**  **structure or**  **fa cility**  **which is**  **substant ia** **lly da** **maged or**  **de stroyed**  **due to an**  **act of** **God or**  **other condition**  **or circumstance**  **be yond**  **the control**  **of the**  **sp onsor.**  **Grant Assurance**  **20, Hazard**  **Removal and**  **Mitigation Grant**  **Assurance 20,**  **Hazard Removal**  **and Mitigation,**  **implements 49**  **U.S. C.**  **§ 47**  **1 0 7(a)(9),**  **and requires**  **that the**  **sponsor of** **a fe**  **deral ly-oblig**  **ated airp ort:**  **will take**  **app ro** 

**priate action**  **to assure**  **that such terminal**  **airs pace**  **as is required**  **to protect**  **inst**

**rument and**  **visual op** **erations to**  **the air**  **port (i** **nclud**

**ing established**  **mi nimum**  **flight altitud** 

**es )**  **will be**  **ad**

**equatel y**  **cleared and** **protected by**  **remov ing,**  **lower ing,**  **relocat ing,**  **marki ng,**  **lighting, or**  **otherwise mi** **tigating ex**  **isting air**  **port hazard** 

**s and**  **by preventing**  **the establi** **shment or**  **creation of**  **fu ture**  **air**

**port hazards.**  **For the**  **pur**

**pose of**  **evaluating sponsor**  **compliance with**  **hazard removal**  **and mitigation**  **requirement s,**  **the FAA**  **defines "airport**  **hazard "**  **as "any**  **structure or**  **obj ect**  **of natural**  **growth located**  **on or in**  **the vicinity**  **of a**  **public-use airport,**  **or any use of land**  **near such**  **an airport**  **that obstructs**  **the airspace**  **required fo**  **r the**  **flight in**  **landing or**  **taking of**  **f at**  **such airport**  **or is**  **other wise**  **hazardous to**  **such landing**  **or tak** **ing of**  **f of**  **aircraft**

**. See**  **FAA Order**  **519 0.6B,**  **Appendix Z.**  **Grant Assurance**  **2 1 ,**  **Compatible Land**  **Use Grant**  **Assu rance**  **21, Compatible**  **Land Use, implements**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **1 07**  **(a)( 1 0**  **) and**  **requires that**  **that the**  **sponsor of**  **a fe** **deral ly-obligated**  **airp ort:**  **will take**  **ap**

**propr iate**  **action, to**  **the extent**  **reasonable, includ ing**  **the ado** 

**ption of** **zoning laws,**  **to restrict**  **the use**  **of land**  **adj acent**  **to or**  **in the**  **immed iate**  **vicinity of**  **the air port**  **to activities**  **and pur**

**poses com** 

**patible with**  **normal air** 

**port op** **erations, including**  **landing and**  **take off**  **of aircra** 

**ft. In**  **addi tion,**  **if the**  **pro ject**  **is fo** **r noise**  **com**

**pa tibility**  **program im**  **plementation, it**  **will not cause**  **or permit**  **any change in**  **land use, within**  **its jurisdiction,** 
**17 that**  **will red**  **uce its com** 

**patib ility,**  **with res** 

**pect to**  **the air** 

**port, of**  **the noise**  **com**

**p atibility**  **program measures**  **up on**  **whichf ederal**  **f und**  **s have**  **been ex** 

**pend ed.**  **Incompatible land**  **use includes**  **usage that**  **adversely affe**  **cts flig** **ht operations**  **at and**  **near airports**  **, such**  **as ob**  **struc tions**  **to aerial**  **na vigation,**  **noise impacts**  **resulting fr** **om residential**  **construc tion**  **too close**  **to the airport,**  **or any**  **other land**  **usage that**  **create s a**  **negative impact**  **on the**  **operation of**  **an airport.**  **9 2**  **Grant Assurance**  **34, Policies,**  **Standards, and**  **Specifications Grant**  **As sura** **nce 34**  **appl ies**  **to pro j**  **ects using**  **AlP grant**  **funds and**  **requires that**  **the sponsor**  **of a**  **fe dera** **lly-obl igated**  **air port:**  **will ca** **rry out**  **the pro** 

**ject in**  **accordance with**  **policies, stand**  **ards, and**  **sp ecifications**  **ap**

**proved by**  **the Secre**  **tar**

**y including**  **but not**  **limited to**  **the ad**  **visor y**  **circulars listed**  **in the**  **Curre nt**  **FAA Advisor**  **y Circulars**  **fo r**  **Al**

**P pro**  **jects, da** **ted**

**__ and**  **included in**  **this grant,**  **and in**  **accordance with**  **ap plicable**  **state policies,**  **stand**

**ard s,**  **and sp** **ecifications ap** 

**proved by**  **the Secre**  **tary. The**  **FAA Airport**  **Compliance Program**  **The FAA**  **discharges its**  **responsibili ty**  **fo r**  **ensuring that**  **airport sponsors comply**  **with their**  **Federal obl**  **igations through**  **its Airport**  **Complia nce**  **Program. Sponsor**  **oblig ati**  **ons are**  **the basis**  **fo r FA** **A's airport**  **complia nce**  **eff ort.**  **The airport**  **owner accepts**  **these oblig**  **ati ons**  **when receiving**  **Federal grant**  **funds or**  **when accepting**  **the transfer**  **of Federal proper** **ty fo** **r airport**  **pur poses.**  **The FAA**  **incor**

**porate s these**  **obligations in**  **grant agreements**  **and instruments**  **of conveyance**  **to protect**  **the publ**  **ic 's**  **interest in**  **civil avia**  **tion and**  **to ensure**  **complia nce**  **with Federal**  **laws. The**  **FAA desig** **ned the**  **Airport Complia**  **nce Program**  **to ensure the av** **ailability of**  **a nati**  **onal system**  **of safe**  **and properly**  **maintained public-use**  **airports that airport**  **sponsors oper** **ate in**  **a manner**  **consi stent**  **with their**  **Federal oblig** **at ions**  **and the**  **pub li**  **c's investment**  **in civil**  **aviati on.**  **The Airport**  **Compl iance**  **Program does**  **not control**  **or direct**  **the op**  **erati on of**  **airports**

**. Rather,**  **it monitors**  **the admini**  **strati on**  **of the**  **valuab le**  **rights that airport**  **sponsors pledge**  **to the**  **people of**  **the United**  **State s**  **in exchange fo** **r monetary**  **grants and**  **donati ons**  **of Federal**  **property to**  **ensure that**  **airport sponsors**  **serve the**  **public inte** **rest. FAA**  **Order 5**  **1 90.6B**  **sets fo** **rth policies and procedures**  **fo r**  **the FAA**  **Airport Com** **plia nce**  **Program. It**  **establishes the**  **policies and procedures**  **to be**  **fo llowed**  **by FAA**  **personnel in**  **interpret ing**  **and ad** **ministering the various**  **continuing commitments**  **airport owners**  **make to**  **the United**  **States as**  **a cond** **i t** **i on**  **fo r**  **receiving Federal**  **fu nds**  **or Fede** **r a** **l property**  **fo r**  **airport purpo**  **ses. The**  **Order, inter**  **alia, ana** **lyzes the**  **vari ous**  **obli ga**  **tions set**  **fo rth**  **in the**  **standard airport**  **sponsor assu** **ranc es,**  **addre sses**  **the ap** **pli cation**  **of the assurances**  **in the**  **operati on of**  **public-use airp**  **orts, and**  **fa cil**  **itate s**  **the interpreta**  **tion of**  **grant assurances**  **by FAA**  **personnel.**

**92 See**  **FA A**  **Or der**  **5190.6B, Airpor**  **t Co**  **mp lia** **n ce**  **Ha ndb**  **ook, para**  **. 20.1**  **18 The**  **FAA Complia**  **nce Program**  **is desig** **ned to**  **achieve compliance**  **with Federal**  **obl igations**  **accepted by**  **owners and/or**  **operators of**  **public-use airports**  **developed with FAA** 

**- administere**  **d assis** **ta nce.**  **When addre**  **ssing allegations**  **of noncompliance,**  **the FAA**  **will make a**  **determina tion**  **of whether**  **an airport**  **sponsor is**  **curren tl**  **y in**  **complia nce**  **with the applicable Federal**  **oblig at** **ions. Conseq** **uently, the**  **FAA will**  **consider a**  **successf ul**  **ac tion**  **by the**  **airport to**  **cure any**  **alleged or**  **potential past**  **viola**

**tion of**  **an app**  **licable Federal obl**  **igation to**  **be grounds**  **fo r**  **dismis sal**  **of such**  **allegation. See**  **W i**  **lson Air**  **Center v.**  **Mem p**  **his and**  **Shelb**

**y Coun**  **ty Aimort**  **Author it** 

**y, FAA**  **Do cket**  **1 6 -99-**  **10 (August**  **30, 200**  **1) (Final**  **Decision and**  **Order) at 5**  **(upheld in**  **Wilson Air**  **Center, LLC v.**  **FAA, 37**  **2 F.3d**  **807 (6th**  **Cir., 2004)).**  **Enf orcement**  **of Airport**  **Sponsor Assurances**  **Enf orcement**  **procedures regarding**  **airport compl**  **iance matters**  **may be**  **fo und**  **at FA** **A Rules of**  **Practice fo** **r Fe**  **de ra** **ll**

**y Assisted**  **Ai rp** **ort En** 

**f orcement**  **Proce edings**  **(14 CFR**  **Part 1 6**  **), which were**  **last updated**  **on September**  **1 2 ,**  **20 13**  **(78 Fed. Reg. 561**  **35) and**  **beca me**  **ef f**  **ective November**  **1 2 ,**  **20 1 3** 

**. The Complaint Process**  **Pursuant to**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.23 , a**  **person "directly and**  **substan tially**  **aff ected**  **by any**  **alleged noncompliance"**  **may file**  **a complaint**  **with the FAA.**  **The compla** **inan t(s)**  **shall "[p]**  **rovide a**  **concise but**  **complete statement**  **of the**  **fa cts**  **relied upon**  **to substantiate**  **each allegation.**  **" 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .23(** **b )(3**  **). The**  **complaint shall**  **also "describe**  **how the**  **complai nant**  **was directly**  **and substan** **tially aff** 

**ected by**  **the things**  **done or**  **omitted to**  **be done by**  **the respondents**  **." 14 CFR**  **§ 1**  **6.2 3**  **(b)(4). "If**  **, based**  **on the pleadings,**  **there appears**  **to be a**  **reasona ble basis**  **fo r**  **further investigation,**  **the FAA**  **investigate s**  **t he**  **subj ect**  **matter of**  **the Complaint."**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.2 9(a).**  **In rendering**  **the initial**  **determina**

**tion, "the**  **FAA may**  **rely entirely**  **on the**  **complain t**  **and the**  **responsive pleadings** 

**.... Each**  **party shall**  **file documents**  **that it**  **considers suf**  **fici ent to**  **present all**  **rele vant**  **fa cts**  **and argument**  **neces sary**  **fo r**  **the FAA**  **to determine**  **whether the**  **sponsor is**  **in compliance."**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.29( b** **)( 1**  **). The**  **proponent of**  **a motion, request,**  **or order**  **has the**  **burden of**  **proof. 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6**

**. 229(** **b ).**  **A party**  **who has**  **ass erted**  **an af firmative**  **def**

**ense has the burden**  **of proving**  **the af**  **firma tive**  **def en**  **se. 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .229(c).**  **This standard**  **burden of**  **proof is**  **consis tent with**  **the Admini**  **stra tive**  **Procedure Act (APA)**  **and Federal case**  **law. The APA provi**  **sion at**  **5 U.S.C.**  **§ 55**  **6(d) state**  **s, "(** **e )xcept**  **as otherwi**  **se provided**  **by statu**  **te, the**  **proponent of**  **a rule or**  **order has**  **the burden**  **of proof.**  **" See**  **also Director,**  **Of fice**  **Worke r'**  **s Com** 

**p ensati**  **on Prog** 

**rams, De**  **partm ent**  **of Labor v. Greenwich**  **Coller i**  **es, 512**  **US 267,**  **272 ( 1**  **994); Air**  **Canada et**  **al. v. De**  **par tment**  **of Trans**  **p ortati**  **on, 1 4**  **8 F3d**  **1 1 4**  **2, 1 1**  **55 (DC**  **Cir, 1 9**  **98). Se** **ction 1 6**  **.229( b)**  **also is consi**  **stent with**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.23 ,**  **which requires**  **the Compl** **ainant to**  **submit all**  **documents then**  **avai lable**  **to support**  **his or**  **her complaint.**  **The Director's**  **De t** **ermina tion**  **will include**  **"findings of**  **fa ct**  **and conclusions**  **of law,**  **accompanied by**  **explana**

**tions and**  **based upon**  **all material**  **issues of**  **fa ct,**  **credibility of**  **the evidence,**  **law, and** 
**19 dis**  **cretion presented**  **in the**  **recor d."**  **14 CFR § 16.**  **31( b).**  **A party**  **adv ersely**  **af f**  **ected by the**  **Director's Determination**  **may appeal to**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator as**  **provided in**  **§ 1 6**  **.33. 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .3**  **1 ( c).**  **The Appeal**  **Process In**  **cases where**  **the complaint is dismissed after**  **investiga tion,**  **a party**  **ad versely**  **aff ected**  **by the**  **Director's Determination**  **may file**  **an app**  **eal with**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **within 30**  **days after**  **the date**  **of service**  **of the**  **initial determinati**  **on. 14**  **CFR §**  **16 .33(** **b)-(c). On**  **appeal fr** **om a Direct** **or' s**  **Determina tion,**  **the Compl** **ainants must**  **demon strate**  **that the**  **Director erred**  **by ( 1)**  **making findings**  **of fa** **ct that**  **were not**  **supp orted**  **by a preponderance**  **of reliable,**  **probative, and substantial**  **evidence, or**  **(2) by**  **making conclusions of**  **law that**  **were not**  **in accordance**  **with applicable law,**  **precedent, and**  **public policy.**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.33( e);**  **see also**  **Ricks v.**  **Mill ing** 

**ton Munici** 

**pal Airport,**  **FAA Doc** **ket No** 

**. 1 6**  **-98- 1 9**  **, (Dec.**  **30, 1 9**  **99) (Final**  **Decision and**  **Order) at**  **9, 21.**  **Review by**  **the Associa** 

**te Admini**  **strator is**  **limited to**  **an examination**  **of the**  **Director 's**  **Determination and**  **the administ** **ra tive**  **record upon**  **which such**  **determina tion**  **was based.**  **14 CFR**  **§ 16**  **.33( e).**  **"Any new**  **issues or**  **evidence presented**  **in an**  **app eal**  **or reply**  **will not**  **be considered**  **unless accompani**  **ed by**  **a petition and**  **good cause**  **as to**  **why the new**  **iss ue**  **or evidence**  **was not presented**  **to the**  **Director. "**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.33( f).**  **The FAA**  **will not**  **consider requests**  **fo r**  **rehearing, reargument,**  **reconsi derati**  **on, or**  **modif ication**  **of a**  **final order**  **without a finding**  **of good**  **cause. 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .3** **3( i).**  **Sec tion**  **1 6 .24**  **7( a) of**  **Title 14 CFR**  **describes ju** **dicial review**  **of the**  **Assoc iate**  **Administra to**  **r's final**  **decision and**  **order, as**  **provided in 49 U.S.C.**  **§ 46**  **1 1 0**  **or §**  **5 1 9(b)(4)**  **of the**  **Airport and**  **Airway Improvement**  **Act of**  **1 9 82,**  **as amended,**  **(AAIA), 49**  **U.S. C.**  **§§ 471**  **06( d)**  **and 47**  **1 1 1**  **( d).**  **VI. COMPLAINANTS'**  **MOTION FOR**  **RECUSAL The**  **Comp lainants**  **contend that**  **FAA must**  **recuse itself from**  **deciding this**  **matter because**  **it cannot**  **be an**  **un biased**  **and unpre**  **ju diced**  **ad**

**judica tor.**  **The Compla** 

**inants argue**  **the FAA**  **is unab**  **le to**  **sepa rate**  **itself fr** **om the**  **litigation position**  **it has**  **taken in**  **a pending**  **matter in**  **the United**  **States Court**  **of Appeals**  **fo r**  **the Second Circuit.**  **93 The**  **Compla**

**inants contend**  **that the Director**  **assumed certain**  **fa cts**  **(i .e.,**  **"whether the**  **Nor th**  **Shore Marine**  **Tran sf** 

**er Station**  **(NSMTS) is**  **in the Runway**  **Protection Zone"**  **and the**  **legi timacy**  **of the**  **Panel Report)**  **that are**  **"part and**  **parcel of**  **the FA** **A's litigation**  **position in**  **2nd Circuit**  **Litiga tion.**  **" 94** 

**93 FA**  **A Exhi** **bit 1,**  **Item 21,**  **pa g** **es 2-**  **3 94**  **FA A**  **Exhi bit**  **1, Item**  **21, pa** **g es**  **3- 4**  **20 The**  **evidence and record**  **reflects that**  **the FAA,**  **in diff**  **erent administrative**  **proce sses,**  **had concluded**  **that the**  **NSMTS is**  **outside the**  **exis ting**  **and ultimate**  **RPZ multiple**  **time s.**  **The FAA**  **made these**  **findings bef**  **ore the**  **Complainants filed**  **this matter**  **under Pa**  **rt 1 6**  **.9 5**  **The Compl**  **ainants further**  **contend that**  **"the Director**  **'s unmitigated**  **bias is**  **shown where**  **the determina** 

**tion ass**  **u mes**  **that the Panel**  **Report carri**  **ed the**  **weight of**  **an FAA**  **determina tion,**  **when, in**  **fa ct,**  **the FAA in**  **the 2nd**  **Circuit Litigation**  **does not**  **go that**  **far and,**  **in fa** **ct, arg** **ues that the**  **Panel Report**  **is ad** **vis ory**  **only and not**  **an agency**  **determina tion.**  **"96 The**  **Compl ainants**  **also argue that bias and**  **pre** 

# j **udice were**  **shown by**  **the Di** **rector discussing**  **that the**  **City of New York was**  **now a Respondent.**  **7 Be**  **cause the**  **iss ue**  **had been**  **resolved by**  **the 2nd**  **Circuit, Complainants**  **argue there**  **was no**  **reason to**  **mention it because it**  **did not**  **af fe** **ct the**  **matter with**  **respect to the**  **Por t**  **Authority .98**  **Each of**  **these issues**  **presented by**  **the Compla** **inants was**  **properly discussed**  **in the**  **Directo r'**  **s Determination**  **as part**  **of the**  **ad minist**  **rati ve**  **record. The**  **Director considered FAA**  **determinati ons,**  **made through**  **dif fe**  **rent admini**  **strative proce**  **sses bef**  **ore this**  **Complaint, in finding**  **the NSMTS**  **was outside**  **of the**  **RPZ. The**  **Director consi**  **dered the**  **Panel Report**  **as an**  **expert ana** **lysis of**  **t he**  **wildl ife**  **hazard impact**  **of the**  **NSMTS on**  **which the**  **PANYNJ could**  **rely. The Director was**  **require d**  **to addre**  **ss the**  **complaint against**  **the City**  **of New**  **York as**  **part of**  **the procedural history**  **and administrative**  **record. The**  **Complainan ts'**  **arguments that bias or**  **pre j**  **udice exists,**  **merely fr** **om an ad** **verse finding,**  **is without merit.**  **The record**  **shows the**  **Comp lainants**  **at tempted**  **to include the City**  **of New**  **York as**  **a Respondent**  **in both**  **of its**  **Original and**  **Amended Part**  **16 Complaints.**  **The Compla**  **inants themselves**  **made it**  **part of**  **the administrative**  **docket fo** **r this**  **Compla int**  **requiring it to be**  **addr essed**  **in the**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion.**  **Further, the**  **Director also**  **showed that**  **the City**  **of New**  **York, which**  **is a non**  **party to**  **this FAA**  **administrative pro**  **cess because**  **it is under**  **no FAA**  **obligations, agreed**  **to implement**  **the recommendati**  **ons from**  **the Panel Report**  **to enhanc**  **e safety**  **at the**  **NSMTS. Finally,**  **the Comp** **l a** **i nants**  **contend that**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **has rubber**  **stamped 1**  **00% of**  **t he**  **Director 's**  **Determina tions**  **since the**  **instituti on**  **of the**  **Part 16**  **regula tions.**  **99 The**  **Compl ainants**  **are incorrect**  **in their**  **asse rti**  **on that**  **all app**  **eals have**  **been upheld**  **by the**  **Associa**

**te Administrator.**  **In both**  **the Amended**  **Complaint and**  **the Appeal**  **fr om**  **the Director**  **'s Determinati**  **on, the**  **Compl ainants**  **rely on**  **a s f** **ecific Part 16**  **case to**  **support the**  **fo unda**  **tion of** **their allegations**  **of PANYNJ**  **'s noncomplian** **ce. 10**  **However, this**  **case had**  **been remanded**  **by the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports, and**  **the Director**  **overturned his**  **own initial**  **determina tion**  **and fo**  **und the**  **airport sponsor**  **was in**  **noncompliance with**  **its Federal obligations.**  **Consequen t**  **ly,**

**9 5**  **See FAA**  **Exhibit I,**  **Item I,**  **ex hibit**  **s 22,**  **23 96**  **FAA Exhibit**  **I, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **4 97**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **4 98**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **4 99**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **5 100**  **Town of**  **Fairview, Te**  **xas v.**  **City of**  **McKin ney,**  **Tex as,**  **FAA Do**  **cket No** 

**. 16-**  **99- 04,**  **Di rect**  **or 's**  **De term**  **ination on**  **Re m** **and ( J**  **u l.**  **26, 2000)**  **21 the**  **Comp lainant**  **'s argument**  **that there**  **is no**  **obj ective**  **review of a**  **Di rector**  **'s Determina**  **tion is**  **without merit.**  **Conseq uently,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **dismisses the**  **motion fo** **r FAA to**  **rec u** **se itself**  **fr om**  **this matter.**  **VII. COMPLAINANTS'**  **MOTION FOR**  **RECONSIDERATION OR**  **REMAND The**  **Comp lainants**  **filed a**  **Motion fo** **r Reconsid** **era tion**  **or Remand**  **on June**  **1, 20**  **13. 101**  **P ANYNJ filed**  **its Motion**  **in Opposition**  **to the**  **Compla inants**  **Motion fo** **r Recons**  **idera tion**  **or Remand**  **on June**  **1 3 ,**  **20 13.**  **1 02**  **The Compla** **inants argued that**  **the U.S.**  **Court of**  **Appeals established**  **that the**  **Panel Report lacked any**  **legal signif** **icance and**  **cannot be**  **legally be**  **relied upon**  **by anyone.**  **1 03**  **The Comp**  **l aina** 

**n ts**  **further contended**  **that, inconsi**  **stent with**  **the Second**  **Circui t's**  **decision, the**  **Direct or'**  **s Determination**  **fo und**  **that par** **ties could**  **rely on**  **the Panel**  **Report. For**  **background pur** **poses, in**  **Paskar v. Uni** **ted States**  **De partm** **ent of**  **Tr ans** 

**portation, Doc** **ket 1 0**  **-46 12**  **(2d Cir.,**  **Apr. 22,**  **201 3),**  **the U.S.**  **Court of**  **Appeals fo**  **r the**  **Se cond**  **Circuit reviewed**  **a letter**  **fr om**  **by the FAA**  **to the City**  **of New**  **York stating**  **that the**  **FAA agreed**  **with the**  **Panel Report**  **finding that**  **the NSMTS**  **would be**  **compatible with**  **safe air**  **operations at LGA**  **if several**  **recommendations of**  **the Panel were fo**  **llowed. 1**  **04 The court**  **fo und**  **that the letter**  **did not**  **constitute a**  **final agency order**  **within the meaning**  **of 45**  **U.S.C §**  **4 61**  **1 (a)**  **and dismissed**  **the petition**  **fo r**  **review on**  **the grounds**  **that the**  **letter be**  **ing challenged**  **did not**  **order the**  **City of**  **New York**  **to take**  **any action.**  **10 5**  **The Court**  **concluded that**  **: Th**  **e FA** **A letter and**  **inter-agenc y**  **panel re** 

**port did**  **not deny**  **a right,**  **impose an ob**  **lig ation,**  **or have**  **legal consequence.**  **It was not a**  **"fi nal**  **ord er**  **" and**  **we lack jurisd**  **iction to**  **review it.**  **Th e petition**  **fo r review**  **is DISM**  **IS SED** 

**. 10** **6 The**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **concludes there**  **is no**  **inconsi stency**  **between the**  **Director 's**  **Determination and**  **the Second**  **Circuit decision.**  **The Directo**  **r' s**  **Determination fo**  **und that**  **there were**  **no legal**  **o b** **li gat**  **i ons**  **imposed by**  **the Panel**  **Report on**  **either the**  **City or**  **PANYNJ. No penalty**  **could be**  **imposed on**  **the City**  **if it**  **chose to**  **ignore the**  **recommendations in**  **the Panel**  **Report**

**. 1**  **0 7**  **The Director**  **did not**  **conclude the**  **Panel Report was a final**  **agency order.**  **Such a**  **conclusion was**  **not necessa** **ry fo** **r the**  **Director to**  **find that**  **the P** **ANYNJ participated**  **in the**  **F AAIU**  **SDA study**  **and reasona**  **bly re**  **l ied**  **on the**  **conclusions reached**  **in the study**  **concerning the**  **NSMTS 's**  **compatibility**

**101 FAA**  **Exh ibit**  **1, It**  **em 23**  **102 FAA**  **Exh ibit**  **1, It** **em 24**  **103 FAA**  **Exh ibit**  **1, It**  **em 23,**  **pa ge**  **5 104**  **FAA Exh**  **ibit 1,**  **Item 21,**  **e x h**  **ibit B**  **105 FAA**  **Exh ibi**  **t 1,**  **Item 21,**  **e x h**  **ibit B,**  **pa ge**  **17 106**  **FAA Exh**  **ibit 1,**  **Item 21, e x** **hi bit**  **B, pa** **ge 17**  **107 FAA**  **Exh ibit**  **1, Item**  **11 22** **with saf** 

**e air**  **oper ati**  **ons at**  **LGA. 10**  **8 The**  **Compla inants**  **' argument**  **that parti**  **es can**  **rely only**  **on final**  **agency orders is**  **without merit.**  **The Associa** 

**te Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **denies the**  **Complainan ts'**  **Motion fo** **r Reconsider**  **ati on**  **or Remand.**  **VIII. ANALYSIS**  **AND DISCUSSION**  **The Comp**  **lainants argue**  **that there**  **are "se**  **veral ways**  **in which NSMTS**  **interf eres**  **with the**  **saf**

**ety of**  **air operations**  **at LGA in**  **violation of grant**  **assu ranc**  **es. 10**  **9 The**  **Compla inants**  **further argue**  **that "the**  **Directo r's**  **Determination fa** **iled to**  **base his**  **determina tion**  **on the**  **probat ive,**  **reliable, and**  **substantial fa** 

**cts and**  **his ana** 

**lysis of**  **the legal**  **issues were not**  **consi stent**  **with applicable**  **precedent and**  **policy. "**  **1 1 0**  **The Compla** **inan**

**ts' specific**  **claims on**  **ap peal**  **are :**  **A. The**  **Director Has**  **Ignored the Facts**  **of the**  **Case By**  **Concluding that**  **NSMTS Is**  **Not in**  **the Runway**  **Protection Zone**  **fo r**  **Runway 3**  **1 at**  **the Airport, and**  **theref ore**  **Erroneously Concluded that**  **the Port**  **Authority Has**  **Not Violated**  **Grant Assurances**  **19, 20,**  **21 and**  **3 4**  **. 111** 
**B. The**  **Director Failed**  **To Take**  **Into Account**  **the Fact**  **that the**  **Location of**  **NSMTS at**  **College Point**  **Prohibits the Airport From**  **Implem enting**  **the Long**  **Planned and**  **Congressionally Mandated**  **Precision Approach**  **fo r**  **Runway 3**  **1 in**  **Violation of**  **Grant Assurances 19,**  **20, 21**  **and 3** **4 !12** 
**C. Even**  **If the**  **Director Were**  **Correct in**  **Determining that**  **the NSMTS**  **Were Outside**  **the RPZ**  **and Did**  **Not Conflict**  **with the**  **Installation of**  **a Precision Approach,**  **It Creates**  **a Hazardous**  **Wildlif e**  **Attractant and**  **Ther ef**  **ore The**  **Port Authority**  **Is in**  **Violation of**  **Grant Assurances**  **19, 20,**  **21 and**  **3 4**  **. 113** 
**D. The**  **Director Erred**  **in His**  **Determination in**  **Finding that**  **the Port**  **Authority Did**  **Not Fail**  **to Take "Appropriate**  **Action" to**  **Protect Terminal**  **Airspace fr** **om the**  **Creat i** **on of**  **Airport Hazards**  **and Incompatible**  **Land Uses**  **in Violation**  **of Grant**  **Assurances 20**  **and 21.**  **114 On**  **Appeal, the**  **Comp lainants**  **argue, "T**  **he Director** 

**.. .f** 

**ailed to take**  **into account**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **'s fa**  **ilure to**  **take (o** **r even**  **attem pt**  **to take)**  **action to**  **prevent the**  **creation of** **a new**  **hazard. Because**  **the Port**  **Au thority** **fa iled**  **to take**  **"ap pro**  **priate and**  **reasonable acti** **on "**  **to**

**108 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **17 ,**  **pa ge**  **49 1 0** **9 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 25**  **1 1 °**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **26 111**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21**  **, pa**  **ge 26**  **1 1 2**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21**  **, pa** **ge 34**  **1 1 3**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **39 1 1**  **4 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 48**  **23 protect**  **terminal air**  **sp ace**  **fr om**  **the creation of** **air port**  **hazard**

**s and**  **incom**

**patible land**  **uses, it is**  **in violation**  **of Grant Assurance**  **19, 20,**  **21 and**  **34. Th** **e Direct** **or 's**  **Determination offe** **rs no**  **reliable, probative**  **and substantial**  **evidence to**  **sup port**  **its fa** **ctual conclusions,**  **and the Direct**  **or 's**  **Determinati on**  **'s legal bases**  **are not**  **consistent with**  **ap plicable**  **law, preced** 

**ent and**  **FA A**  **pol icy.**  **"115 The**  **Compl ainants**  **go on to**  **sta te,**  **"One of**  **the prim** **ar**

**y roles**  **of the**  **air**

**port owner**  **and op** **erator is**  **to ensure**  **the sa** 

**fe ty**  **of all**  **who use the**  **air port.**  **Grant Assurances**  **19, 20,**  **21 and**  **3 4 en**  **f orce**  **th at**  **duty. Th** **ere can**  **be no**  **do ubt**  **that NSMTS,**  **as it**  **is curren** **tly de** **sig ned**  **and permitted,**  **is an**  **im pedim** **ent to**  **sa**

**fe ty**  **at the**  **Ai rp** **ort. Th** **at was**  **the conclusion**  **of the**  **F AAIUS**  **DA Panel.**  **Panel Re**  **port ,**  **Ex .3**  **5, pp** **. 2 0** 

**- 22** 

**. Th**  **e Port**  **Au thority**  **has not**  **do ne an**  **ything to**  **mi ti** 

**gate the**  **serious risks**  **posed by the construction**  **of NSMTS.**  **Mo reover**  **, the**  **Director has**  **fa iled**  **to acknowled**  **ge the**  **Port Au** **th ority**  **'s duty**  **to mi** **tigate the risks**  **posed by**  **the NSM** **TS and**  **raised by**  **the Compla**  **inants in**  **this matter.**  **" Upon**  **consid era** 

**tion of**  **the Amended**  **Compla int,**  **the Director**  **of the**  **Of fice**  **of Airport**  **Complia nce**  **and Management**  **Ana lysis**  **determined that P** **ANYNJ is**  **not currently**  **in viola**  **t i** **o n**  **of Federal**  **oblig ati**  **ons under**  **Grant Assura** **nces 5,**  **Ri ghts**  **and Power** 

**s; 1 9**  **, Op** **eration and**  **Ma intenance;**  **20, Haz** **ard Removal**  **and Mi** **ti gation;**  **21, Com** 

**patible Land**  **Use; and**  **34, Pol** **icies, Standard**  **s, and**  **Sp ecifications:**  **as well**  **as Title**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 47**  **1 0 7**  **et seq.**  **Arguments and**  **supporting docu** 

**mentati on**  **submitted by**  **the parti**  **es, which**  **comprise the**  **admini strative**  **record are**  **reflected in**  **the at** 

**tached FAA**  **Exhibit 1.**  **In order to**  **assure that**  **the Compla** **inan ts'**  **Appeal is**  **addre ssed**  **on each**  **specific issue,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **will review**  **each iss** **ue sepa**  **rate ly**  **as submitted by**  **the Compla** **inan**

**ts. On**  **app eal,**  **the Associa** 

**te Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **upho lds**  **the Director**  **'s Determination**  **based on**  **each conclusio**  **n of**  **law made**  **in accordance**  **with ap** **plicable law,**  **prece dent,**  **and public**  **policy. It**  **is impor** **tant to**  **note that**  **the Comp**  **lainants made**  **no argument**  **that the**  **Director erred**  **in finding**  **the PANYNJ**  **had not vio**  **lated Grant**  **Assu ranc**  **e 5,**  **Preserving Ri**  **ghts and**  **Powers. Also,**  **the Comp**  **lainants made**  **no argument**  **that the**  **Director erred**  **in finding**  **that Grant**  **As surance**  **34 is not**  **app licable**  **because the**  **complaint did**  **not involve an**  **AlP fu**  **nded proj**  **ect. Conseq**  **uent ly,**  **the specific**  **issues on**  **appeal as**  **they relate**  **to Grant**  **As sura** **nces 5**  **and 34**  **are waived.** 

**A. Whether**  **The Director**  **Has Ignored**  **the Facts**  **of the**  **Case By**  **Concluding that**  **NSMTS Is**  **Not in**  **the Runwa**  **y Protection**  **Zone fo**  **r Runwa**  **y 31**  **at the**  **Airpo rt,**  **and theref** 

**ore Erroneou**  **sly Concluded**  **that the**  **Port Autho**  **ri ty**  **Has Not**  **Violated Grant**  **Assurances 19** **. 20,**  **21 and**  **34. The**  **Compl ainants**  **make several**  **arguments concerning**  **the NSM** **TS :** 

**115 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 2 1**  **, pa**  **ge 10**  **24 First,**  **it is located in**  **the RPZf**  **or Runwa** 

**y 31,**  **which not onl** 

**y is a sa fe**  **ty concer** **n, but**  **also eliminates**  **it from**  **AC 15 0/**  **5200-33B 's**  **reduced stand ards**  **fo r**  **fa cilities**  **that are**  **"f**

**ull y**  **enclosed. "**  **Se cond,**  **NSMTS blocks**  **the im**  **plementation of** **a precision**  **ap**

**proach on**  **Runwa**

**y 31 with**  **lower visibility**  **minim ums,**  **which not onl**  **y is**  **a sa**  **fe ty concern, but also**  **has had**  **severe economic**  **consequences on**  **air tra**  **ffic in**  **the Ne** **w Yo** **rk area.**  **Th ird,**  **NSMTS brin**  **gs yet**  **another wildlif** 

**e attractant**  **into the**  **Ai r**  **port 's**  **area of**  **op erations,**  **fu rther**  **com plicating**  **a situation**  **that is**  **alread y**  **com plex**  **and diffi** **cult to manage.**  **Finall y,**  **the Panel**  **Report, which**  **the Port Au** **thority and the**  **Director attempt**  **to hid**  **e behind,**  **isjlawed. 1**  **16 The**  **Compla inants**  **argue that**  **P ANYNJ**  **has an**  **obli ga**  **tion, under**  **its lease,**  **to ensure**  **that the**  **City does**  **not const** **ruct any**  **structure in the**  **RPZ or**  **that pe** **netrate any**  **surf ac**  **es, and**  **to remove**  **any that**  **are in**  **the RPZ or**  **that penetrate**  **any surf**  **aces. 1**  **1 7**  **The record**  **shows t** 

**hat on**  **November 24,**  **2004, the**  **City and the Respondent**  **entered into an**  **amended and restated**  **agreement of**  **lease fo** **r the opera tion of**  **LaGuar dia**  **Airport. The**  **agreement conveys**  **to the**  **Port Authority**  **the demised**  **premises that**  **make up**  **LaGuar dia**  **Airport in**  **exchange fo** **r monetary**  **consi dera** 

**tion. With**  **respect to**  **this allegation,**  **Se ction**  **2 1 .2.3**  **of the**  **agreement state**  **s: Th**  **e City shall**  **use the LaG** **uardia Av**  **ig ational**  **Ea**

**sement Areas**  **fo r**  **park pur**  **poses and**  **fo r**  **no other**  **pur**

**pose what** 

**soever and**  **shall not**  **de ve**  **lop or**  **use the LaGua** **rdia Avi**  **gatio nal**  **Ea sement**  **Areas so**  **as to**  **inter fe** **re with,**  **im**

**pair or**  **obstruct the saf**  **e and**  **effi cient**  **op eration**  **and de**  **velo pment**  **of LaG** **uardia Ai** **rp ort**  **or the**  **sa fe**  **and unrestricted**  **passage of** **aircra ft**  **in and over**  **the same.**  **Th e**  **City shall**  **not erect,**  **install or**  **maintain any**  **structure, buil**  **ding, tower,**  **pole, wire**  **or other**  **ob ject**  **within LaG** **uardia Av** **ig**

**ational Ea** **sement Areas**  **the construction**  **maintenance or**  **op eration**  **of which**  **would constitute**  **a hazard**  **to avi**  **gat ion**  **in the**  **reasonable op** **inion of**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **nor place**  **jill up** **on the**  **LaG uardia**  **Av iga** **tional Ea**  **sement Areas**  **or place**  **any structures**  **or bu**  **ildings thereon**  **except in**  **accor da** **nce with**  **plans ap**  **proved by the**  **Chie**

**f En**  **gineer of**  **the Port**  **Aut hor**  **ity, which**  **ap proval**  **shall not**  **be unreasonabl**  **y withhe**  **ld, conditioned,**  **or de**  **la yed.**  **Th e**  **City shall**  **take all**  **reasonably practical ste**  **ps to**  **prevent its**  **agents, emplo**  **yees, licensees,**  **cont**

**ractor s,**  **and invitees**  **fr om**  **intruding up** **on, inter**  **f ering**  **with or**  **da maging**  **Equi**

**pm ent**  **installed, op** **erated or**  **managed by or**  **on behalf**  

# o/s **the Port**  **Au thority**  **or the**  **FA A on**  **the LaG** **uardia Avi**  **ga tional**  **Ea sement**  **Areas. 1 8**  **Section 21.**  **41 of**  **the agreement state**  **s: Th**  **e City**  **ag rees**  **that at**  **no time**  **during the**  **Te rm**  **shall the**  **He igh** **t and**  **Us e**  **Restricted Pro** 

**perties be**  **used or**  **occu**

**pied at**  **any time**  **(i) fo**  **r school house**  **or similar**  **educational pur**  **poses or**  **(ii) fo** **r residential**  **pur poses**  **which inc**  **lude but**  **shall not**  **be limited**  **to private**  **hom es,**  **ap artment**  **hou**

**ses, hospit** 

**als, nursing**  **homes**

**116 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 2 1**  **, pa**  **ge 25**  **117 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 2 1**  **, pa**  **ge 27**  **1 1 8**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **1 7 ,**  **pa ge**  **26, citing**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **1, ex** **hibit 55**  **25 or**  **sim ilar**  **fa cilities,**  **hotels or**  **mot els**  **unless the use or occu**  **panc y**  **of such**  **hotel or**  **motel shall**  **have received**  **the ex**  **press prior**  **written consent of**  **the Port**  **Au thority,**  **which consent**  **shall not**  **be unrea**  **sonabl y**  **withheld, dela** 

**yed or**  **condit ioned.**  **JJ9 Section**  **2 1 .4.2**  **of t** **h e**  **agreement state**  **s: Th**  **e City**  **ag**

**rees that**  **at no**  **time during**  **the term**  **shall structures**  **of any**  **nature be**  **erected, vehicles**  **parked, other**  **items places,**  **or gr** **owth of**  **natural ob**  **jects be**  **permitted by**  **the City up** **on the**  **He igh** **t and**  **Us e**  **Restricted Pro**  **perties which**  **in the**  **op inion**  **of the**  **FA A or**  **in the**  **reasonable op** **inion of**  **the Port Au** **thority constitute**  **an obstruction**  **to avigati** **on nor**  **shall any**  **activity be**  **permitted on**  **the He**  **igh t**  **and Us** **e Restricted**  **Pro**

**perties which**  **in the**  **op inion**  **of the**  **FA A or**  **in the**  **reasonable op** **inion of**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **inter fe**  **res with**  **or constitutes**  **a hazard**  **to the**  **Mu nici**  **pal Ai** **r Te** **rminals or**  **in any**  **way inter**  **fe res**  **with aviga** **tion or communi** **cations serving**  **the Mun** **ici pal**  **Ai r**  **Te rminals.**  **In no**  **event ,**  **moreo ver,**  **shall any**  **structure or**  **structures be**  **erected or**  **gr owth**  **of natural**  **ob ject**  **be permitted**  **up on**  **the He**  **igh t**  **and Us** **e Restricted**  **Pro perties**  **which shall**  **pro**

**je ct**  **above a**  **horizontal plane**  **(i) at elevation**  **3 16**  **measured in**  **fe et above**  **mean sea**  **level at**  **Sand**

**y Ho**  **ok, Ne**  **w Je** **rsey as to the**  **He igh** **t and**  **Us e**  **Restricted Pro**  **perty de** **scribed in**  **Exh ibit**  **B -6**  **as Pro**  **perty 1,**  **(ii) at**  **elevation 212**  **measured in**  **fe et**  **above mean**  **sea level**  **at Sand**  **y Ho**  **ok, Ne**  **w Je**  **rsey as**  **to the**  **He igh** **t and**  **Us e**  **Restricted Pro** 

**perty de** **scribed in**  **Exh ibit**  **B -6**  **as Pro**  **perty 2**  **or (i**  **ii**

**) at**  **elevation 1 6**  **2 measured**  **in fe**  **et above**  **mean sea**  **level at**  **Sand y**  **Ho ok**  **, New**  **Je rsey**  **as to**  **the He**  **igh t**  **and Us** **e Restricted**  **Pro perty**  **de scribed**  **in Exh**  **ibit B-6**  **as Pro**  **perty 3.**  **1 2**  **0 The Director**  **fo und**  **that the**  **Respondent has**  **the right**  **to prevent**  **the establishment**  **of any**  **structur e,**  **fac i**  **lity, or**  **natural growth**  **loca ted on**  **the airport**  **if**

**, in**  **the opinion**  **of the**  **FAA or**  **in t** **he reasonable**  **opinion of**  **the Respondent,**  **the proposal**  **constitutes a**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigation**  **or an**  **incompatible land use.**  **Theref ore,**  **it appears that**  **the agreement reasonably**  **protects the airport**  **fr om**  **ob structi**  **ons and hazards**  **to air**  **na vigation,**  **as well as**  **incompat ible**  **land uses**  **adj acent**  **to the LaGuardi**  **a Air** 

**port. Additionally,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Administra**  **to r's**  **review of**  **the Amended**  **also fo**  **und that**  **Se ction**  **21.1 is**  **app licable.**  **Section 21.1**  **sta tes**  **in pertinent**  **part: During**  **the term**  **fo r**  **which the**  **Demised Premises**  **are leased,**  **the City shall not**  **erect or**  **authorize the**  **erection of** **any obstructions**  **or haza** **rds to**  **air navigati** **on to**  **the exte**  **nt prohibited**  **by law**  **or by rule**  **or reg** **ulation of**  **the FA** **A, (x)**  **up on or**  **above City**  **streets or**  **other pro**  **perty be**  **longing to**  **the City which will pro**  **ject into**  **the Ho**  **rizontal Sur** 

**f aces,**  **Conical Sur** 

**f aces,**  **Prim ary**  **Sur**

**f aces,**  **Ap proach**  **Sur**

**faces or**  **Tr ansitional**  **Sur**

**f aces**  **or (j;)**  **within the**  **bou nd**  **aries of**  **the Runwa** 

**y Prot**  **ection Z h**  **. fr**  **. .**  **121 ones,**  **as sue**  **ma**

**y exzst**  **om tzme**  **to tzme.** 

**1 1 9**  **FAA Exhi**  **bi t**  **1, It** **em 17,**  **pa ge**  **26, citing**  **FAA Exhi**  **bi t**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex h i**  **b i t**  **55 12** **° FAA**  **Exhi b i** **t 1,**  **It em**  **17, pa**  **ge 26,**  **citing FAA**  **Exh i**  **bi t**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **exhi b i**  **t 55**  **121 FAA**  **Exhib it**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **exhi b i** **t 55,**  **pa ge**  **43 26** **Although this**  **sec t** **ion was**  **not addre**  **ssed by**  **the Di**  **rector, it**  **provides the neces**  **sary guidance**  **with**

**respect to**  **some of**  **the Compla**  **inan ts'**  **argumen ts.**  **The Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **stra tor**  **fo r**  **Airports finds that**  **Section 21**  **.1 allows**  **the area**  **constituting the**  **RPZ to**  **change when**  **neces sary**  **to comply**  **with app**  **licable law**  **or FAA**  **regulati ons,**  **and does**  **not limit**  **the RPZ**  **to the**  **area described in**  **Exhibit B-**  **3 of**  **the Amended**  **Lease. 1**  **22 As the**  **Director fo** **und, if**  **the FAA had**  **fo und**  **that the NSMTS was**  **within the RPZ**  **or other**  **wise constituted**  **a haza** **r d to**  **air na**  **vigation, the**  **P ANJN**  **Y retai**  **ned the**  **authority to**  **prevent its**  **co nstructi**  **on under**  **the terms**  **of its**  **lease with**  **the City.**  **However, the**  **FAA did**  **not make**  **that finding,**  **thus triggering**  **no obli**  **gati on**  **on the**  **part of**  **the P ANYNJ**  **or the**  **City to**  **prevent its**  **construc tion.**  **Thus, the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **upholds the**  **Direct or' s**  **Determina**

**tion as**  **it relate**  **s to**  **this specific**  **alle ga**  **tion concerning**  **the lease.**  **1. Whether**  **the NSMTS**  **is located**  **in the**  **current RPZ.**  **The Compla** **inants argue**  **that the**  **"Port Au** **thority and**  **the FA** **A have**  **on several occasions**  **stated that**  **the NSMTS**  **is within**  **the bou** **ndaries of**  **the current**  **RPZ. "**  **123 The**  **Compla inants**  **provide several exhibits**  **supporting this**  **argument. The**  **Comp lainants**  **contend that**  **after the**  **P ANYNJ**  **withdrew its**  **Petition fo** **r Review**  **of the**  **FA A's**  **Determination of No**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigat** **ion, Aeronau**  **tical Study**  **No. 20**  **04-AEA- 3 1**  **59 -0E,**  **the "Director**  **ign ored**  **the fa** **cts that**  **the co**  **ordinates of**  **the NSMTS**  **did not change enou**  **gh to**  **move the**  **bu ilding**  **fr om**  **a position**  **ins ide**  **the RPZ**  **to a**  **place outside**  **the RPZ** 

**. ..**  **" 12** **4 The**  **Compl ainants**  **argue that**  **the NSMTS**  **is closer**  **to Runway**  **31 than is**  **described in**  **the No**  **Hazard Determina**  **tion. 125**  **The Compla** **inants contend**  **that "if**  **NSMTS was**  **considered by the**  **Port Au** **thority to**  **be within**  **the RPZ**  **in its**  **Petition fo** **r Review**  **in 2006**  **and by**  **the FA** **A in**  **2007 ,**  **it also**  **must be**  **within the**  **RPZ using**  **the coor** **di nates**  **that the**  **Port Au**  **thority su** 

**p plied**  **to the**  **FA A**  **in 2007.**  **" 126**  **The Compla** **inants contend**  **that neither**  **"the PA**  **NYN J nor**  **the Director**  **off**

**ered any**  **ex**

**planation fo**  **r this dis** **cre panc**  **y. "**  **1 2** **7 In**  **its Reply**  **to the**  **Appeal, the P** **AN YNJ**  **argu es**  **that the**  **Director made**  **the correct**  **determina tion**  **based on**  **the evidence in**  **the record that**  **the NSMTS**  **will be**  **outside the**  **RPZ. 1**  **2 8**  **The Respondent**  **contends that**  **the Compla**  **inants rely**  **on sta** 

**tements that**  **are contra** 

**dicted and**  **superseded by**  **later documents**  **in the**  **record. 1**  **29**

**122 The**  **Co mpl**  **a i**  **na nts**  **fil ed**  **a Mo** **t io**  **n to**  **Sup pleme**  **nt Re**  **cord a n**  **d Ame**  **nd Appe**  **al w i** **th Exhi**  **b i t**  **A, the**  **Ame nd** **ed Lease**  **B-3, whi**  **ch id**  **e n t i**  **fied the**  **exi sti** **ng RPZ**  **to Run** **way 31**  **at LGA**  **on the**  **date of**  **the e x** **ec u** **t i on**  **of the**  **Ame n** **ded Lease**  **of No**  **vember 24**  **, 2004** 

**. The**  **Mo ti**  **o n was**  **do cketed**  **on Ja** **nu ary**  **16, 2015** 

**. The**  **Res po** **n de**  **nt fil**  **ed its**  **Opposi tio**  **n to**  **the Co**  **mpl a** **in a** 

**nts '**  **Mo ti**  **on to**  **Sup pleme**  **nt Re**  **cord a n**  **d Ame**  **nd the**  **Appe al**  **a n d**  **ad d**  **it io**  **na l**  **Res po**  **n de** **n t '**  **s Mo** **ti o n**  **to Sup** **pl eme** **nt Re**  **cord a n**  **d Ame**  **nd Re**  **ply do**  **cketed on**  **Ja nu**  **ary 29,**  **2015. The**  **Co mpl**  **a ina**  **nts ar** **gue tha** **t the**  **Ame nd** **ed Lease**  **exhi b i** **t B-3**  **is co** **ntr ol**  **ling as**  **defi ned**  **in the**  **Ame nd**  **ed Lease**  **rathe r**  **tha n**  **the term**  **s that**  **sho uld**  **be in** **ter pr** **eted th**  **ro ugh**  **the us**  **e of**  **other do**  **c ume** **nts a n**  **d gui** **da nc**  **e. Ho**  **we ver**  **, the**  **Ame nd** **ed Lease**  **Se cti**  **on 21**  **.1 prov**  **i des**  **that ther** **e ca** **n be**  **ch a n**  **g es**  **to the**  **RPZ s.**  **The Co**  **mpl a** **in a** **nts al**  **so previ**  **o usly**  **had su** **bm itt**  **ed the**  **e n t i**  **re Ame**  **nd ed**  **Lease w i** **th al**  **l of the**  **Exh ib**  **its att** **ached ,**  **in clu**  **di ng**  **Exhi b i** **t B-3.**  **See FA** **A Exhi**  **b i t**  **1, Item**  **1, ex** **h i b i** **t 55** 

**. Fo** **r this**  **r e as**  **o n , both**  **the Co**  **mpla in**  **a nts**  **' a n**  **d Res** **po n**  **de n** **t ' s**  **Mo t**  **io ns**  **to Sup**  **pleme nt**  **Re cord**  **a n d**  **Ame nd**  **the Appe**  **al ar** **e de**  **nied. 123**  **FA A**  **Exhi bi**  **t 1, It** **em 21**  **, pa** **ge 28, citing**  **FA A**  **Exhi b i**  **t 1,**  **It em**  **1, Exh**  **ib its**  **8, 10**  **, 39**  **1 2**  **4 FA**  **A Exhi**  **b i t 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa**  **ge 29**  **125 FA**  **A Exhi**  **b i t 1,**  **It em**  **21 ,**  **pa ge 30**  **126 FA**  **A Exhi**  **b i t**  **1, It** **em 21**  **, pa**  **ge 30**  **127 FA**  **A Exh**  **i b i**  **t 1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **30 128**  **FA A**  **Exhi b i**  **t 1,**  **It em**  **22, pa**  **ge 28**  **1 29**  **FA A**  **Exh ib**  **it 1,**  **It em**  **22 ,**  **pa ge**  **29, citing**  **FA A**  **Exh ib**  **it 1,**  **It em**  **1, Exhi**  **bi ts**  **13 ,**  **22 27** **The record**  **ref lects**  **that the**  **City provided**  **additional detai**  **led inf**  **orma tion**  **to the**  **Respondent pertaining**  **to t** **he proposed**  **NSMTS**

**. The**  **Respo ndent**  **was able**  **to determine**  **that the**  **proposed fa** **cili ty**  **was outside**  **of the**  **RPZ fo** **r Runway**  **31 and would**  **not present an adverse**  **ef fe**  **ct on**  **air opera**  **tions at**  **LGA. The**  **Respo ndent**  **state d:**  **Af ter**  **di scussions**  **between the**  **New Yo**  **rk City**  **Departm ent**  **of San**  **itation and**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **of NY**  **& NJ,**  **we were**  **able to**  **clarify the**  **sp ecific**  **corner points**  **of the**  **bu ilding,**  **allowing us**  **the op**  **portunity fo** **r a more**  **de tailed**  **review of**  **the potential**  **im**

**pacts. In**  **addi tion, the**  **De partment**  **of Sa** **nitation was**  **able to**  **redesign the**  **bu ilding**  **high point**  **to a**  **hei gh** **t of**  **1 0 0** 

**. 06**  **[fe et** 

**}.**

**... As**  **a result**  **of this**  **new inf**  **ormation, we**  **have de**  **t ermined**  **that the**  **bu ilding**  **is now**  **located out** 

**side the RPZ and out** 

**side the**  **ICA O**  **de**

**parture sp** **lay. Th** **e redesig**  **ned hei**  **ght also**  **put**

**s the**  **structure below**  **the slope**  **of existing**  **buil dings,**  **no longer**  **k . .**  **h ll**  **" b .**  **130 ma**  **zng zt**  **t e contra**  **zng o**  **structwn. Th** **us, the**  **Director relied**  **on an**  **FAA ana** **lysis and**  **determ inati**  **on that**  **the NS**  **MTS is**  **not in**  **the RPZ**  **rather than**  **on other**  **sta tements**  **made prior**  **to completion**  **of that**  **fo rmal**  **ana lysis.**  **The Direct** **or 's**  **finding that the**  **Respondent exer cised**  **due dil**  **igence in**  **determining the**  **heig ht**  **and comers**  **of the**  **NSMTS and**  **then reasonably**  **withdrew its ob**  **je ctions**  **is supported**  **by the**  **record. The**  **Direct or**  **'s finding**  **of fa**  **ct was**  **based on**  **a preponderanc**  **e of**  **evidence in**  **the record. Consequently,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator upholds**  **the Director**  **'s finding**  **that the**  **record supports**  **that the**  **NSMTS is outside the**  **exi sting**  **RPZ. 2.**  **Whether the NSMTS is**  **in the**  **Ultimate RPZ.**  **The Complainants**  **argue that**  **"[ e**  **]ven if**  **the NSMTS**  **is not within**  **the current**  **RPZ, it**  **unquestionably is within**  **the fu** **ture planned**  **(o r**  **"ultimate '')**  **RPZ. "**  **131 The**  **Compla inants contend**  **that the a** **i rpo** **rt 's**  **long-term plan**  **fo r a**  **Category I**  **or II**  **ILS would**  **render the**  **NSMTS in**  **the future**  **RPZ. 13**  **2 The**  **Compla inants**  **con tend**  **that the Director**  **ignored that**  **a precision**  **approach would**  **1. .**  **LGA 133**  **re 1eve**  **congestiOn at**  **. The**  **Comp lainants**  **contend that**  **vari ous**  **exhibits show that**  **P ANYNJ**  **reco**

# �**nized and planned**  **that the**  **RPZ will**  **go out**  **to 2500**  **fe et**  **consi stent**  **with FAA adv**  **isor y**  **circulars. 1**  **4 The**  **Compl ainants**  **also argue**  **that even**  **if the**  **NSMTS is**  **technically outside**  **the RPZ,**  **it is very**  **close to**  **the RPZ**  **and should**  **be trea**

**t ed**  **as such because**  **"s af**  **ety concerns**  **do not**  **magically disappear**  **once the enclosed**  **transf er**  **sta tion**  **is outside**  **the RPZ."**  **135**

**1 3**  **° FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **1, ex**  **hibit 13**  **1 3**  **1 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **30 132**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 2 1**  **, pa** **ge 30**  **133 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **31 1**  **34 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **32 135**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 2 1**  **, pa** **ge 33**  **28 The**  **Respondent contends**  **that the FAA**  **studied the**  **fe asibili** **ty of**  **installing a**  **glideslope antenna** 

**on Runway**  **31 to**  **accommodate a**  **Cate gory**  **I ILS**  **appro ach**  **but "concluded**  **that no**  **suita ble**  **location exists**  **fo r**  **the instal**  **lation, "**  **rendering a**  **Category 1**  **approach not**  **fe asible**  **with exi**  **sting techno**  **logy. "**  **136 The**  **Respo ndent**  **also contends**  **that "even**  **if CA**  **T I ap**  **proach were**  **fe asible,**  **a CA**  **T II**  **ap proach**  **to Runwa**  **y 3**  **1 wo**  **uld be**  **in**

**f easible**  **irres**

**pective of**  **the pre** **sence of**  **the NSMTS**  **bec ause**  **of the**  **presence of** 

**preexisting obst** 

**ructions. Seven existing**  **obstructions penet** **rate the**  **3 4:1**  **inst rument**  **ap proach**  **sur**

**f ace**  **to LG** 

**A Runwa**  **y 3**  **1**

**. "**  **137 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **the Respondent's**  **ap proved**  **ALP does not**  **depict fu** **ture plans**  **fo r**  **visibili ty**  **minimums below 3/4-mile**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.**  **Thus, the**  **app roved**  **ALP correctly**  **depicted the**  **ultimate RPZ**  **f**

**or Runway**  **31 to**  **be 1,** 

**700 fe**  **et in**  **length**

**. The**  **proposed NSMTS**  **is loca**  **ted approximately**  **2,200 fe**  **et fr** **om the**  **end of**  **the runway.**  **This is**  **within FAA**  **standards consi**  **dering that**  **the FAA**  **and t** 

**he Respondent**  **determined that**  **visibil ity**  **minimums below 3/4mile**  **were not**  **fe asible**  **at LGA. The**  **Record shows the FAA determined**  **that the proposed**  **NSMTS is**  **situated outside**  **the ultimate**  **RPZ fo** **r Runway**  **31. The**  **Record shows**  **that existing**  **ob structi**  **ons and ILS systems**  **requirements prevent**  **the establishment**  **of a**  **CAT II**  **appro ach.**  **The Comp**  **lainants submitted a**  **letter fr** **om the owners**  **of one**  **of the**  **obstructions that**  **suggest that**  **its obstruction**  **could be**  **lowered fo**  **r "signifi** **cant costs,**  **which must be**  **reimbursed to**  **Ferrara Bros.**  **" 13**  **8 However,**  **the Respondent**  **also provided**  **other evidence**  **of existing**  **ob structi** **ons and**  **issues that**  **would prevent**  **a CAT**  **II appro**  **ach or**  **visibili ty**  **minimums of**  **less than**  **3/4 mile,**  **regar dless**  **of the**  **NSMTS. 139**  **As discussed**  **earlier, the**  **Record shows**  **the Director**  **reasonably determ**  **ined that**  **after the**  **City provided**  **additional specific**  **informa tion**  **pertaining to the proposed**  **NSMTS, the**  **Respon dent**  **was able**  **to determine**  **that the**  **proposa l**  **was outside**  **of the**  **RPZ fo** **r Runway**  **31 and**  **would not**  **present an**  **adverse ef** 

**f ect**  **on air**  **operations at**  **LGA, and**  **subsequently withdrew**  **its petition.**  **Based upon the revised**  **inf**

**ormation provided**  **by the**  **City, a**  **new aeronau**  **tical study**  **was initiated**  **by the**  **FAA that**  **resulted in**  **a Determina**  **tion of**  **No Hazard**  **to Air**  **Naviga tion.**  **Thus, the**  **FAA confirmed**  **that the**  **location of**  **the NSMTS**  **was outside**  **of the**  **current and**  **ultimate RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.**  **Furthe rmore,**  **the Director**  **fo und**  **that although**  **the P** **ANYNJ was**  **interested in**  **having a**  **precision instrument**  **approach, it**  **could not**  **reasona bly**  **meet the**  **technical and**  **regulatory requirements**  **to instal**  **l a glidescope.**  **Conseq uently,**  **the record supports**  **the Direct** **or' s**  **finding that**  **the FAA**  **determined that**  **NSM T** **S is**  **outside the**  **current and**  **ultimate RPZ;**  **is not**  **loca ted**  **within the**  **P ANYNJ**  **leasehold at LGA, and**  **also is**  **not loca** 

**ted on**  **any other**  **airport sponsor-owned propert** **ies. The**  **record also**  **shows that**  **the FAA**  **and P** **ANYNJ studied and determined**  **that a**  **precision app**  **roach to**  **Runway 31**  **at**

**136 FA**  **A Exhi** **b i t**  **1, It**  **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **11 citing**  **FA A**  **Exh i**  **b i t**  **1, It** **em 3,**  **Att ac**  **hme nt**  **C 137**  **FA A**  **Exhi b i** **t 1,**  **It em**  **22, pa**  **ges 11-**  **12 ,**  **citing FA**  **A Exhi**  **bi t**  **1, It** **em 3,**  **Att ac**  **hme nt**  **A 138**  **FA A**  **Exhi bi**  **t 1,**  **It em**  **1, exhi** **b i t**  **18 139**  **FA A**  **Exhi b i** **t 1,**  **It em**  **3, Exh**  **ib it**  **A 29** **LGA could**  **not reasonably**  **be insta** **lled. Thus,**  **the Complainants have**  **not demonst** **ra ted**  **that the**  **Director 's**  **finding was**  **not based on**  **a preponderance of**  **evidence in**  **the record.**  **Th us,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **upholds the Direct** **or' s**  **Determinati on**  **with regards**  **to this**  **specific iss** **ue on**  **app eal.**  **3 .**  **Whether the**  **Port Autho**  **rity Has**  **Violated Grant**  **Assurances 19** **, 20,**  **2 1 ,**  **and 3** **4 .**  **The Compla** 

**inants argue**  **that the**  **PANYNJ 's**  **"ab ject**  **fa ilure**  **to keep**  **NSM TS**  **out of**  **the RPZ**  **(c ur** **rent and**  **planned RPZ) or**  **take any mitigation measures**  **is a**  **violation of**  **its du**  **ties and**  **ob lig**  **ations under Grant**  **Assurances 19**  **, 20,**  **21, and**  **34. "**  **1 40**  **FAA policy**  **regarding Grant**  **As surance**  **19 does**  **not impose**  **obl igations**  **with respect**  **to property**  **not owned**  **by the**  **airport sponsor.**  **The Port**  **Authority cannot**  **be fo** **und to**  **have vio**  **lated Grant**  **As surance**  **19 beca** 

**use the**  **co nstruct**  **ion of the**  **NSMTS by**  **the City**  **of New**  **York is**  **of f**  **airport property**  **. As**  **discussed above,**  **the record**  **supports the**  **Directo r's**  **finding that the**  **FAA deter**  **mined that**  **NSMTS is**  **outside the**  **current and**  **ultimate RPZ;**  **not located**  **within the**  **P ANYNJ leasehold**  **at LGA,**  **and also**  **is not**  **loca ted**  **on any**  **other airport**  **sponsor-owned properti**  **es. The**  **record also**  **shows that**  **the FAA**  **and P**  **ANYNJ studied**  **and determined**  **that a**  **precision approach**  **to Runway**  **31 at LGA**  **could not**  **reasona bly**  **be insta** 

**lled. Thus,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports cannot**  **reverse the**  **Directo r' s Determination**  **based on**  **the record.**  **B. Whether**  **the Director Failed**  **To take into**  **Account the**  **Fact that the**  **Location of**

**NSMTS at**  **College Point**  **Prohibits the**  **Airport fr** **om Implem**  **enting the**  **Long Planned**  **Precision Appr** **oach fo**  **r Runwa**  **y 31**  **in Violation**  **of Grant**  **Assurances 19** **, 20,**  **2 1 ,**  **and 3** **4 .**  **The Compla** **inants contend**  **that "b**  **y locating NSMTS**  **at College**  **Point , it will**  **not be**  **possible to**  **institute a precision**  **ap**

**proach fo** **r Runwa** 

**y 31 with visibility**  **mi nimums**  **that can**  **take advantage**  **of the**  **ap proach.**  **" 1**  **4 1**  **The Comp**  **lainants also**  **contend that**  **the "FAA knew that**  **NSMTS was**  **a hazard**  **to the airs** 

**pace and**  **would block the**  **im ple**  **mentation of** **a precision**  **ap proach.**  **" 1**  **42 The**  **Comp lainants**  **sta**

**t e that**  **PANYNJ has**  **a long**  **history of**  **restricting new**  **cons truct** **ion that**  **limit the**  **use of**  **airspace around**  **LGA including**  **"the P**  **ANYN J'**  **s success**  **fu l**  **eff orts**  **with regard**  **to the**  **redevelo pment**  **of the**  **historic RKO**  **Ke ith**  **movie theatre in**  **Flus hing**  **in 2005**  **with regard**  **to the**  **red evelo**  **pment of**  **the Fl** **ushing Mu** **nici pal**  **Parking Lot**  **in 2006."**  **14 3**  **The Compla**  **inants contend**  **that the**  **P ANYNJ**  **is allowing a**  **new obstacle to**  **impr oving**  **operational capa**  **bilities rather**  **than 1.**  **. . h**  **1 44**  **e 1mmatmg**  **t em.** 

**1 4°**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 34**  **1 4**  **1 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa**  **ge 34**  **citing FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **1, ex**  **hibit 19**  **1 4**  **2 FA**  **A Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21**  **, pa** **ge 3 5**  **1 43**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **35 citing**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **10, pa**  **ge 3**  **144 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 3 7**  **30 The**  **record shows**  **that after**  **the City**  **submitted its**  **initial proposal**  **fo r**  **the NSMTS,**  **the**

**Respondent wrote to**  **the FAA fo**  **rmal ly**  **ob je** **cting to**  **the proposal. 145**  **Again, af**  **ter the FAA**  **subsequently issu** **ed its**  **Determi nati**  **on of**  **No Hazard**  **to Air**  **Navigation fo** **r Aeronauti**  **cal Study**  **No. 20**  **04-AEA -3**  **1 59-0E,**  **the Respondent**  **wrote the FAA**  **ob je** **cting to the**  **proposal and**  **filing a**  **petition fo** **r the**  **FAA to review**  **the study** 

**. 146**  **The record**  **also reflects**  **that after**  **the City**  **provided additional**  **informat ion**  **pertaining to**  **the proposed**  **NSMTS, the**  **Respo ndent**  **was able**  **to determine**  **that the**  **proposal was**  **outside of**  **the RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31**  **and would**  **not present**  **an adverse**  **ef fect**  **on air**  **operati ons**  **at LGA.**  **14 7**  **The Respondent**  **state d:**  **Af ter**  **dis cussions**  **bet ween**  **the New**  **Yo rk**  **City De**  **partm ent**  **of Sa** **nitation and**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **of NY**  **& NJ,**  **we were**  **able to clarifY**  **the sp** **ecific corner**  **points of**  **the buil** **ding, allowing**  **us the**  **op portunity**  **fo r a**  **more de**  **tailed review**  **of the**  **potential im** 

**pacts. In**  **addi tion,**  **the Departm** **ent of** **Sa nitation**  **was able**  **to redesign**  **the bu**  **ilding high**  **point to**  **a hei**  **ght of**  **10 0** 

**. 06**  **[fe et** 

**].**

**... As**  **a result**  **of this**  **new in**  **f ormation,**  **we have**  **de termined**  **that the**  **bu ilding**  **is now**  **located out** 

**side the RPZ and out** 

**side the**  **ICA O**  **de**

**parture sp** **lay. Th** **e redesigned**  **hei ght**  **also put** 

**s the**  **structure below**  **the slope**  **of existing**  **bu ildings,**  **no longer**  **making it**  **the controlling**  **obstruction. 148**  **Th us,**  **only after the completion of**  **its due**  **diligence, did**  **the Respondent**  **withdraw its**  **ob je** **ctions to**  **the NSMTS**  **and its**  **petition to**  **review the**  **Dete rminati**  **on of No**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigation**  **fo r**  **Aerona utical Study No.**  **20 04-AEA-3**  **1 5 9-0E.**  **Subsequently, the**  **FAA confirmed**  **that the**  **proposed NSMTS**  **does not**  **pose a**  **Hazard to**  **Air Naviga**  **tion when**  **it issued**  **its Determination of No**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigation**  **on September**  **1 9 ,**  **2008. Additionally,**  **the FAA,**  **in Mr. William**  **Flanaga n's**  **June 1 0**  **, 2009,**  **letter to**  **Mr. Harry**  **Szarpa nski,**  **confirmed that**  **the loca**  **tion of**  **the NSMTS**  **was outs** **i de**  **of the RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.**  **As noted**  **above, after**  **th ree**  **years of**  **ef f**  **orts studying**  **the issue,**  **"the FAA**  **and the**  **P ANYNJ**  **have been**  **una ble**  **to find**  **a suita** **ble location**  **that will**  **permit all**  **weather opera**  **ti ons**  **and ena** 

**ble fa**  **cili ty**  **st aff**  **to clear snow**  **without impacting**  **a CAT**  **I glide**  **slope an**  **tenna. "**  **149 Although**  **the PANYNJ**  **was interested**  **in having**  **a precision**  **instrument approach,**  **it could**  **not reasonably**  **meet the**  **tech nical**  **and regulatory**  **requiremen ts.**  **The record**  **shows that**  **the FAA**  **determined that**  **a precision**  **app roach**  **to Runway**  **31 at**  **LGA is**  **not reasonably**  **possible at the**  **airport. Thus,**  **the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **cannot find**  **any reliable evidence that P** **ANYNJ had**  **viola ted**  **any grant**  **assura nces**  **when it**  **relied on**  **the FAA**  **determina tion**  **that the**  **NSMTS was**  **outside of**  **the RPZ.** 

**1 45**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **1, ex**  **hibit 8**  **1 4** **6 FA**  **A Exhibit**  **1, Ite**  **m 1,**  **ex hibit**  **10 1**  **47 FA**  **A Exhibit**  **1, Ite**  **m 1,**  **e x hibit**  **13 1**  **4 8**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **1, ex**  **hibit 13**  **1 49**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Ite m**  **17, pa** **ge 39**  **citing FA** **A Exhibit**  **1, Ite**  **m 3,**  **Atta chment**  **C 31** **C. Whether**  **the NSMTS**  **Creates a**  **Hazardous Wildlife**  **Attractant and**  **Therefore the**  **Port Authority**  **is in**  **Violation of**  **Grant Assurances**  **19 ,**  **20, 2 1**  **, and**  **34. 1.**  **Whether the**  **Director fa**  **iled to**  **take into**  **account that**  **locating NSMTS**  **at College**  **Point fa**  **ils to**  **comply with**  **FAA Advisory**  **Circulars 1 5** **0/5200-338 and**  **15 0/5200-**  **34A and**  **ther ef** 

**ore violates**  **grant assurances**  **19 ,**  **20, 21,**  **and 34.** 

**a. Whether**  **the NSMTS**  **is not**  **a "fully**  **enclosed" waste**  **transf er**  **station because**  **it is**  **part of a**  **much larger**  **garbage fa**  **cility and**  **trucks using**  **the fa** **cility are**  **not "enclosed."**  **The Comp**  **l a** **inan**

**t s**  **contend that**  **the NSMTS**  **is not**  **a "f**  **ully enclosed** **" waste**  **tran sf**  **er sta**  **tion because**  **it is**  **a much larger**  **garbage fa** **cility, and**  **trucks using**  **the fac** **ili ty**  **are not**  **"en closed."**  **150 The**  **Comp l** **ainan**

**t s**  **allege that**  **the NSMTS**  **is loca**  **ted on**  **the same**  **City-owned lot**  **as a**  **garb age**  **depot th** **rough which hundreds**  **of trucks**  **enter and**  **exit every**  **day. Compl** **ainants allege**  **garbage trucks**  **fre quently enter**  **the depot**  **without first**  **being cleaned and are**  **serviced while**  **the doors**  **t o**  **the depot**  **remain open.**  **The Compla** **inants contend**  **that "when**  **considered in**  **con junction**  **with one**  **another, the**  **NSMTS and**  **the garbage**  **de pot**  **do not**  **constitute a fu** **ll y**  **enclosed 'fa** **c ility**  **' under**  **AC 150**  **!5 20** **0- 33B** 

**. "**  **1 5**  **1 The**  **Com p** **l ainants**  **also allege**  **that "the**  **garbage tr**  **ucks bringing**  **re f**  **use to**  **NSMTS will**  **not be**  **'enclosed veh**  **icles. "'**  **152 The**  **Compl ainants**  **allege that**  **"the City**  **does not**  **own 'enclose**  **d' vehicles**  **and that based on**  **in**

**f ormation**  **and belie** 

**f, that**  **at least**  **10 %**  **of the**  **garbage hauled**  **to the**  **NSMTS will**  **be from**  **private cont**  **ractors, who**  **most certainl**  **y will**  **not be**  **using enclosed**  **veh icles.**  **" 15**  **3 P** **ANYNJ responds**  **that the**  **Compla inants**  **arguments that**  **the NSMTS**  **will not**  **be fu** **lly enclosed**  **are based on**  **allega**

**tions that**  **are not**  **supported by**  **the record.**  **1 54**  **The Compla** 

**inan ts'**  **allegations concerning**  **the existing**  **garb age**  **depot were not supported**  **by the**  **fa cts**  **in the**  **record bef** 

**ore the**  **Director. Additionally,**  **the state** **ments may be moot**  **as the**  **NSMTS at**  **issue in this**  **Complaint is**  **rep l** **acing by conversion**  **to a**  **waste containeriza**  **ti on**  **tran sf** 

**er sta** **tion at the existing**  **fa cility.**  **1 55**  **The report**  **provides informa**  **tion that**  **an existing**  **tran sf**  **er fa** **cili ty**  **is being**  **converted into**  **a new**  **NSMTS fa** 

**cil i** **ty that**  **is mitigating**  **any wildlif**  **e hazards**  **in accordance with**  **the alterative**  **recommen dati** **ons in**  **the Panel Report.**  **In addition,**  **a DSNY**  **garage fo**  **r its vehicles**  **curren tly**  **is co-lo**  **cated on**  **the same**  **property**
**. The**  **Complainan**

**ts' additi**  **onally allege**  **that "the**  **plans call**  **fo r**  **up to**  **twenty unenclosed**  **tr ucks,**  **loaded with**  **garbage and ex**  **posed garbage**  **clinging to th**  **eir sides,**  **to queue**  **out side**  **NSMTS on** 

**15 °**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **41-42 151**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **41 1**  **5 2**  **FAA Exhi** **bi t**  **1, It** **em 21,**  **pa ge**  **42 1**  **53 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 42**  **1 54**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **37 1**  **55 F A**  **A Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **ex hibit**  **5, pa** **ge 1**  **32 the**  **ramp waiting to**  **enter the**  **fa cility.**  **" 1**  **56 The**  **Panel Report**  **specifically stated**  **that "the**  **two-lane**

**access /e** **gress ram** 

**p will**  **have an**  **inbound lane**  **with sp**  **ace fo** **r queue**  **ing up**  **to 20**  **collection vehi**  **cles, "**  **and those**  **vehicles "will**  **not be**  **allowed to**  **idle fo**  **r longer**  **than thre**  **e min** **utes. "**  **15 7**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **the P ANYNJ reasonably**  **relied on**  **the conclusions**  **and mitigati**  **ons in**  **the F** **AAIUSDA panel**  **report, and the Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **stra tor**  **concludes that**  **finding was**  **based on**  **a preponderanc**  **e of**  **evidence in**  **the record.**  **Thus, the**  **Associa te**  **Admini stra** 

**tor fo** **r Airports dismisses**  **this specific**  **iss ue**  **on Appeal.** 

**b. Whether**  **the NSMTS**  **does not**  **meet the**  **AC 15**  **0/5200-33B's definition**  **of "enclosed**  **fa cility"**  **because it does**  **not filter odors.**  **The Compl** **ainants allege**  **that the**  **NSMTS does**  **not use**  **a filtration**  **system fo** **r odor**  **control but**  **rather "negative**  **air pressu** **re" and**  **"odor neutral**  **izer" to**  **contro l**  **odors. 15**  **8 The**  **Compl ainants**  **con tend**  **that this is not suf** 

**fic ient**  **under AC**  **1 5 0** **/5200 -33B**  **fo r**  **consi deration**  **as a**  **''f ull**  **y enclosed**  **trash trans**

**fe r**  **fa cility.**  **" 1**  **59 The**  **Respo ndent**  **contends that**  **the Complainan**  **ts' arguments**  **are based**  **on a**  **narrow interpretati** **on of**  **Advisory Circular**  **1 5 0/5200**  **-33B. 16**  **0 The**  **Respondent further**  **argues that**  **the Compl** **ainants ignore**  **the evidence**  **in the**  **record of the**  **vari ous**  **build ing**  **systems which**  **will be**  **used to**  **co ntro**  **l odors.**  **1 61**  **Advisory Circu** **l ar**  **1 5 0/5200-3**  **3B states**  **that fa** **c ilities**  **"that do**  **not control**  **odors by**  **ventilation and**  **filt ration**  **sys tems**  **(o do**  **r masking**  **is not acceptab**  **le) do not meet**  **the FA** **A 's**  **de finition**  **of**

**fu ll**  **y enclosed**  **trash trans** 

**fe r**  **station**

**s. " The**  **record includes**  **the Ja** **nu ar**  **y 2007**  **, City**  **of New**  **Yo rk De** 

**partm ent**  **of Sa** **nitation Eng** **ineering Report**  **fo r**  **the Ma** **rine Tr** **ans**

**fe r**  **St ation,**  **part 3**  **60 Permit**  **Ap plication**  **that provided**  **there are**  **building systems**  **that will**  **provide odor**  **contro l.**  **They include**  **a dust**  **contro l**  **system suspended**  **above both the tip** **p ing**  **and loading**  **floors; hoses available on**  **all levels**  **fo r**  **dust control and**  **water sprayed**  **on the**  **floor during dry**  **per iods;**  **paved surf**  **ac es**  **swept daily;**  **containerizing all**  **solid waste**  **within 24**  **hours of**  **tipping to**  **minimize odors;**  **all equipment**  **washed down**  **routi nely;**  **regular air**  **cha**

**nges to**  **circula**

**te air**  **within the**  **pr ocessi** **ng building; air**  **deodorizing system; and all**  **building doors**  **kept closed**  **when coll**  **ection vehicles**  **are not**  **entering or**  **exiting the**  **building; building**  **ventilation maintained**  **under negative**  **pressure, which will**  **maintain dust and odors**  **inside the**  **enclosed building;**  **HVAC system**  **to maintain**  **the consi**  **stent air**  **chang es**  **per hour;**  **and when**  **access doors**  **open, supplem**  **entary roof**  **exhaust fa**  **ns to**  **maintain the**  **buildings negative**  **pressure. 1**  **62**

**156 FAA**  **Exhib it**  **1, Item**  **21 ,**  **pa ge**  **42 157**  **FAA Exhibi**  **t 1,**  **Item 1,**  **exhi bi** **t 5,**  **pa ge**  **30 1**  **5 8**  **FAA Exhibi** **t 1,**  **Item 21**  **, pa** **ges 42-43**  **, citing**  **FAA Exhibi**  **t 1,**  **Item 1,**  **ex hibi** **t 5 1**  **59 FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **1, Item**  **21 ,**  **pa ge**  **42 16** **° FAA**  **Exhibi t**  **1, Item**  **22 ,**  **pa ge**  **37 161**  **FAA Exhib**  **it 1,**  **Item 22**  **, pa** **ge 38**  **1 6** **2 FAA**  **Exhibi t 1, Item 1,**  **exhi bi** **t 5,**  **pa ges**  **70-72 33** **The Panel Report described**  **the fa**  **cility as**  **desig ned**  **fo r**  **indoor transfer**  **of solid**  **waste into sea**  **l ed,**  **cleaned leak** 

**- proo**  **f contai**  **ners. 16** **3 No**  **solid waste**  **will be**  **tran sf**  **erred or**  **stored outside**  **of the**  **building. 1**  **64 Finally,**  **the Panel Report**  **described that**  **: Al** **l waste will**  **be processed**  **in an**  **enclosed bu**  **ilding that**  **maint ains**  **negative air**  **pressure to**  **prevent odors**  **from esca**  **ping while**  **bu ilding**  **do ors**  **are op** **en. In**  **addi tion,**  **exhaust air**  **fr om**  **the trans**  **fe r**  **station bu** **ilding will**  **be tr** **eated using**  **an d**  **l . .**  **16 5**  **o or neutra**  **zzzng sys**  **tem. The**  **Director fo** **und that**  **the NSMTS**  **was compatible**  **with safe**  **operati ons**  **at LGA**  **because it**  **is a fully-enclosed**  **trash tran** **sf er station and**  **is not**  **on airport**  **property or**  **within the**  **RPZ, and that**  **the P** **ANYNJ reasonably**  **relied on**  **the conclusions**  **reached in**  **the Panel**  **Report with**  **regard to**  **this compa**  **tibility. Based**  **on the**  **record, the Comp**  **lainants are**  **not able**  **to persuade the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports that the**  **fa cility**  **is not**  **fully enclosed.**  **The technical**  **experts who**  **drafted the Panel Report**  **fo und**  **that the**  **NSMTS design**  **incorporated alternative**  **methods of**  **odor co** **ntro l**  **(specifically use**  **of an odor**  **neutr alizing**  **system) fo** **r it to**  **be considered**  **a fu** **lly enclosed**  **fa cility.**  **FAA Advisory**  **Circulars are**  **ad visory**  **in nature**  **and permit**  **alterna tives**  **to achieve**  **desired results,**  **and the**  **Panel Report**  **experts fo** **und, after**  **reviewing the**  **detai ls**  **of the**  **NSMTS proposal,**  **that the**  **f**

**ac i**  **lity incorporated**  **an alternative**  **means of odor**  **control that**  **suf ficien**  **tly achieved**  **the desired**  **results of**  **compatibility with sa**  **fe airport**  **operati ons.**  **Conseq uentl**  **y, the**  **Compla inants**  **have not**  **been persuasive**  **in their**  **argument that**  **the Director**  **erred in**  **relying on**  **the Panel**  **Report to**  **conclude that**  **the NSMTS**  **was fully**  **enclosed.**

**c. Since**  **the publication**  **of AC**  **15 0/5200-33B,**  **the FAA**  **has concluded that**  **whether a**  **transfer station**  **is "fully**  **enclosed" or**  **not has**  **no bearing**  **on its**  **attractiveness to**  **birds. The**  **Complai nants**  **argue that**  **the NSMTS**  **will cons** **titute a**  **hazar dous**  **wildlif e**  **att ractant**  **regardl ess**  **of whether**  **it is fully**  **enclosed because**  **there is**  **an "existing**  **presence of**  **substantial numbers**  **of birds"**  **at the**  **loca tion**  **and a**  **recent FAA**  **study fo**  **und that**  **whether a**  **fa cility**  **is open**  **or closed**  **did not**  **make a**  **dif f**  **erence in**  **term s**  **of the**  **fa cilit** **y's ability**  **to attract**  **birds. 16** **6 Comp**  **lainants urge**  **the FAA**  **to "reconsider its**  **statement in**  **AC 1 5**  **0 /520**  **0-3 3B**  **that 'f** **ully enclosed**  **fa cilit** **ies' are**  **'g e** **nera lly**  **compatib le'**  **with saf**  **e airport**  **operati ons."**  **16 7**  **The Respondent**  **argues that**  **the Evalua** **tion of**  **Tr as**  **h-T rans**  **fe r**  **Fa cilities**  **as Bird**  **At tractants**  **Report is**  **not certification**  **policy. 16** **8 The**  **Respondent further**  **contends that**  **the Eva**  **luation Re**  **port 's**  **conclusion supports**  **the Panel**  **Report. The**  **conclusion sta**  **tes in**  **part: Con** **sequen tl** 

**y, tra** **sh-trans**

**fe r**  **fa cilities**  **in close**  **pro ximity**  **to air**  **port environme**  **nts should**  **be evaluated**  **on an individual**  **basis to**  **de termine**  **whether or**  **not they**  **are**

**163 FAA**  **Exhi bit**  **1, Item**  **1, exhi** **b it**  **35, p a** **ge 15**  **164 FAA**  **Exhi bit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **exhi b**  **it 35,**  **p a ge**  **16 165**  **FAA Exhi**  **bit 1,**  **It e m**  **1, e x** **hi bit**  **35, p a** **ge 16**  **166 FAA**  **Exhi bit**  **1, It**  **em 21,**  **p a ge**  **43- 44,**  **citing FAA**  **Exhi bit**  **1, It** **em 1,**  **exhi bit**  **29 167**  **FAA Exhi**  **bit 1,**  **Ite m**  **21, p a** **ges 43-**  **44 168**  **FAA Exhi**  **bit 1,**  **Ite m**  **22, p a** **ge 40**  **34 attractive**  **to or**  **influe nce**  **the movement**  **patterns of**  **wil dl** **if e**  **and if**  **the location**  **of such**  **a fa** **cility increases**  **the risk**  **to sa**  **fe aircra**  **ft op** **erations. Ap** 

**pro priate**  **wil**

**dlif e**  **control activities**  **could be**  **conducted at**  **trash-trans fe** **r fa** **cilities to**  **reduce the**  **wi ldlif**  **e attra** **ction and thus**  **de crease**  **the risk**  **of bi**  **rd strikes**  **as**

**soci ated with**  **those fa** **cilities. 169**  **The Panel**  **Report is**  **consi stent**  **with the**  **conclusion oft**  **he Eva** **luation of**  **Tr as** **h-T rans**  **fe r**  **Fa cilities**  **as Bird**  **At tr** **actants**

**. The**  **Panel Report**  **evaluated the**  **NSMTS on**  **an individual**  **basis and**  **concluded that the**  **repor t's**  **recommended design**  **changes and**  **operational procedures**  **will achieve**  **compat ibili** **ty between**  **the NSMTS and LGA**  **with respect**  **to wildlif**  **e and**  **safe air**  **operati ons.**  **The City agreed**  **to implement**  **tho se**  **recommen dati**  **ons in**  **the con** **structi on**  **and opera**  **tion of the**  **NSMTS**

**. The**  **Director 's**  **D e** **t ermin** **a tion**  **reasonably gave**  **greater weight**  **to the**  **specific anal**  **ysis of**  **the NSMTS**  **in the**  **Panel Report than to**  **general statements**  **about such**  **fa c**  **ilities in the**  **Evaluation stu** **dy. The**  **D i**  **recto r**  **'s finding**  **that the**  **NSMTS, subj**  **ect to**  **recommended mitiga tions,**  **does no** **t pose a**  **wildlif**

**e hazard**  **is supported by a**  **preponderance of**  **evidence in**  **the record.**  **Cons equently,**  **the Associa**  **te Admini**  **strator fo**  **r Airports**  **does not**  **find the**  **Compla inan**  **ts' argument**  **concerning this**  **specific iss** **ue persuasive**  **to overturn**  **the Director**  **Determina tion.**  **d. Whether**  **human fa**  **ctors will**  **keep the**  **NSMTS fr**  **om being**  **compatible with**  **safe air**  **operations. The**  **Compl ainants**  **contend that**  **enclosed fa**  **c ilities**  **are '"gener** **all**

**y com**  **patible '**  **de**

**pend s**  **on the**  **assum ption**  **that that these**  **fa cilities**  **will [b**  **e} op** **erated properl**  **y." 1**  **70 The**  **Compla inants**  **contend that**  **human fa** **ctors enter**  **the equati**  **on, and the**  **result is**  **an increased risk**  **to sa** **fe air operations**  **based on**  **photo ev** **i dence**  **of the Staten**  **Isla nd**  **Rail Tran**  **sf er Stati**  **on in the**  **Panel Report**  **and one of the**  **Compla inan** **ts' experts**  **as well**  **as testimony**  **fr om**  **another state**  **'s admini**  **strative pr** **ocess. 17**  **1 The**  **Respo ndent**  **contends that**  **the Comp**  **lainants arguments**  **are based**  **on "mere**  **speculation, not**  **eviden ce."**  **1 7** **2 The**  **Respondent argues**  **that the**  **Compl ainants**  **rely on mere risk of**  **human error,**  **a single**  **photog r** **a**

**p h**  **of a**  **dif**

**fe rent**  **DSNY tra** 

**nsf er**  **fa cility, and a**  **des cription**  **of the**  **operations of**  **another state**  **'s trash**  **tra nsf**  **er sta**  **tion to**  **support the inf** 

**erence that**  **the NSMTS**  **will not**  **be operated**  **as a**  **fully enclosed**  **fa cility.**  **1 7 3**  **Although the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **understands the**  **Complainan ts'**  **argument on**  **human fa**  **cto rs,**  **such speculative**  **evidence is not**  **reliably persuasive**  **to conclude**  **that P**  **ANYNJ is not**  **in current**  **complia nce**  **with its**  **Federal oblig**  **ati ons.** 

**169 FAA**  **Exh i** **bit 1,**  **It em**  **22, pa**  **ge 40,**  **citing FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **1, ex**  **hibit 29,**  **pa ge**  **15 17°**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **44 171**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ges**  **44- 45**  **172 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **22, pa** **ge 41**  **173 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **22, pa** **ge 41**  **35 Con** **sequently, the**  **Associ ate**  **Admini stra**  **tor fo** **r Airports dismisses**  **this specific**  **iss ue**  **in the**  **Complainan**

**ts' Appeal.**  **2. In**  **considering whether NSMTS is**  **incompatible with**  **safe airport**  **operations, the**  **FAA must**  **consider the**  **totality of**  **circumstances. The**  **Compl ainants**  **argue that**  **the "Director** **fa iled**  **to take**  **into account**  **that the**  **totality of**  **circumstances surround** **ing its location**  **must be**  **consid ered. "**  **17 4**  **The Compl** **ainants contend**  **t h** **at the**  **NSMTS is**  **located on**  **the waterfront,**  **which serves**  **as a**  **significa nt**  **attr actant**  **fo r a**  **variety of**  **hazard ous**  **bird species,**  **and that**  **there are**  **significa nt**  **num bers**  **of gulls and**  **other large birds**  **already visible**  **at the NSMTS**  **con structi**  **on site. 17**  **5 The**  **Comp lainants**  **also contend**  **that the Panel**  **Report warned**  **of significa**  **nt bird**  **activity on**  **and near the NSMTS**  **site and**  **concluded that**  **the NSMTS,**  **as originally**  **designed and**  **permitted, represents**  **a substantial**  **risk of**  **hazard ous**  **bird activity.**  **17 6**  **The Comp** **lainants argue**  **that NSMTS**  **is loca**  **ted "next**  **to mud** **flats, Flus** **hing Ba**  **y, an**  **existing garbage**  **de**

**pot, and**  **numerous bu**  **ildings that**  **provide op**  **portunities to**  **perch" and**  **"wo uld**  **onl y**  **add to**  **the alread** 

**y existing**  **risk of**  **bi**

**rd strikes**  **." 17**  **7 In**  **its Reply, the Respondent**  **contends that**  **"the Panel**  **Report specifically**  **took these**  **[environmental] fa** 

**ctors into**  **accou**

**nt in**  **reaching its**  **conclus ion."**  **17 8**  **The Director**  **'s Determination**  **was reasonable**  **to consider**  **the findings**  **of the**  **Panel Report**  **in evaluati** **ng the**  **Responden t's**  **act ions.**  **The Panel**  **Report specifica**  **lly considered**  **the environment**  **of the**  **NSMTS and**  **LGA and**  **recommended acti**  **ons to**  **mitigate the risk presented**  **by wildlif**  **e. The**  **record shows**  **those mitigations**  **were accepted**  **by the**  **City of**  **New York**  **and the**  **Respondent. 17** **9 The**  **Compla inants**  **have not**  **presented arguments**  **on app**  **eal that**  **the Direct**  **or' s**  **find ings**  **were not**  **based on a preponderance**  **of evidence**  **in the record.**  **Conse quently**  **, the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r Airports**  **upholds the**  **Director 's**  **Determina tion.**  **D. Whether the**  **Director Erred**  **in Finding**  **that the**  **Port Authority**  **Did Not**  **Fail to**  **Take**

**"Appropr i** **ate Action"**  **to Protect**  **Terminal Airspace**  **fr om**  **the Creation**  **of Airport**  **Hazards and**  **Incompatible Land Uses**  **in Violation**  **of Grant**  **Assurances 20**  **and 21.**  **1. Whether**  **the NSMTS**  **and Ferrara**  **Brothers' stacks**  **are "airport**  **hazards" under**  **Grant Assurance**  **20. The**  **Compl ainants**  **argue that**  **the sponso**  **r's duty**  **to protect**  **instrument and**  **vi sual**  **opera tions**  **to the**  **airport fr** **om airport**  **hazards goes**  **beyond preventing**  **stru ctur** **es fr** **om being**  **built that**  **are "obstructions**  **in the**  **aerial ap**  **proaches to**  **the air** 

**port. The**  **sp onsor**  **also is**  **required to**  **prevent structures**  **and land**  **uses th** **at will**  **attract wi**  **ldl ife.**  **" 1**  **8 0**  **The Compla**  **inants allege**  **that the** 

**174 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **46 175**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 2 1**  **, pa**  **ge 46 176**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ge**  **46 177**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **21, pa**  **ge 48**  **178 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 22,**  **pa ge**  **42 179**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **17, pa**  **ge 54,**  **citing FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 1,**  **ex hibit**  **38 1**  **8° FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 2 1**  **, pa**  **ges 50-5**  **1 36** **Respondents have conceded that it**  **has not**  **complied with**  **Grant As**  **surance 20 and**  **21 by**  **not**

**taking appropriate**  **acti on**  **to elimin** **ate or**  **mitiga te**  **seven other**  **airport hazards in**  **addition to**  **NSMTS, including**  **the Fer**  **rara Brothers'**  **stack s.**  **181 The**  **Comp lainants**  **again allege**  **that the**  **NSMTS is**  **within the**  **RPZ, and**  **that the**  **NSMTS will**  **attract wildlif** 

**e and**  **be a**  **hazard to saf**  **e airport**  **operations, despite the findings**  **of the**  **Panel Report** 

**. 18** **2 The**  **Respo ndent**  **arg ues**  **the record**  **shows that the**  **"F AA**  **and Panel fo**  **und the**  **NSM TS**  **to be com**  **pa tible**  **with air**  **op erations**  **at LGA,**  **and th** **at as**  **a result**  **of reasonable**  **actions by**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **within the**  **scope of** **Port Au** **th ority**  **ca pability,**  **changes in**  **he ight,**  **location, de** **sign and**  **op eration**  **of the**  **NSMTS have**  **and will**  **be made**  **consist ent**  **with FA** **A de**  **terminations to**  **eliminate or**  **mi tigate**  **possible hazards.**  **" 1**  **8 3**  **The Director properly**  **concluded that**  **the FAA**  **makes the**  **final determinati** **on on**  **matters related**  **to airspace**  **use and**  **management, including**  **saf e and**  **reasona**

**ble mitigation**  **measures fo**  **r obstacles**  **and haza**  **rds. The**  **Director 's**  **Determination documented**  **that NSMTS**  **is not**  **lo cated**  **within the**  **Port Authority**  **'s leasehold**  **at LGA**  **and also**  **is not**  **located on**  **any other**  **airport sponsor-owned**  **properti es.**  **The D**  **i rector**  **fo und**  **that the**  **record shows**  **that the**  **FAA stud** **ied the**  **existing ob**  **stru ctions**  **and the NSMTS,**  **and deter**  **mined that**  **the mitigation measure**  **s in**  **place provide**  **an accepta**  **ble level of**  **safety fo**  **r air**  **na vigation**  **and air operati** **ons at**  **LGA. Thus,**  **the FAA**  **does not**  **consider the existing ob**  **structi ons,**  **or the**  **NSMTS, to**  **be a hazard**  **to air**  **naviga ti** **on or**  **air opera**  **tions at**  **LGA. The Director also fo**  **und that the**  **Respo ndent**  **took reasonable**  **actions and**  **exercised due**  **diligence. Conseq** **uentl y,**  **the Compla**  **inants have**  **not made**  **an argument**  **that justifies**  **reversing the**  **Direct or'**  **s D**  **e t** **erm i** **na**

**tion**

**. 2.**  **Whether the**  **NSMTS is**  **an incompatible**  **land use**  **within the**  **meaning of**  **Grant Assurance**  **21. The**  **Comp lainants**  **argue that**  **"NSMTS is**  **not com pa** **tible with**  **'lo cal air** 

**port op** **eratio ns**  **' because it is**  **an obstruction**  **to aerial**  **navigation, it**  **is in**  **the RPZ**  **and it is a**  **hazardo us**  **wil dlif**  **e attract**  **ant." 1**  **84 The**  **Comp lainants**  **again state**  **that "NSMTS**  **is also**  **not com**  **patible with**  **local air**  **port op** **erations because it**  **inter fe**  **res with**  **the Port**  **Au thority**  **'s stated**  **goal of**  **imple ment** **ing a**  **precision ap** 

**proach in**  **general**

**, and**  **CA T**  **II ap** 

**proach in**  **particular. "**  **18 5**  **The Comp**  **lainants rely**  **on Ke** **ath y**  **v. City**  **of Mc** 

**Ki nne**  **y, Texas**  **and the**  **Collin County**  **Regional Ai** **rp ort,**  **Docket No.**  **1 6 -0**  **3-14 ,**  **Direct or**  **'s Determination**  **(October 13,**  **2004). In**  **that case, the**  **Director state**  **d:**

**1 81**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 2 1**  **, pa** **ges 5 1**  **-52 182**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 2 1**  **, pa** **ges 53-54**  **183 FAA**  **Exh ibit**  **1, It**  **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **43 184**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 2 1**  **, pa** **ge 55**  **185 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2 1 ,**  **pa g** **es 55-**  **56 37** **With regard**  **to com**  **patible land**  **use issues, FA** **A typ** **ica ll**  **y add**  **resses two**  **questions in**  **order to**  **de termine**  **if a sp** **onsor has**  **violated its**  **ob liga** **tions. 1.**  **Are the**  **fa cility**  **'s op** **erations com**  **patible with**  **local air** 

**port op** **eratio ns?**  **2. If** **not, could**  **the sp** **onsor have**  **prevented the** **fa cility** **fr om**  **op erating**  **near the**  **air port?**  **186 The**  **Respondent replies**  **that the**  **FAA and**  **the Panel**  **fo und**  **the NSMTS to**  **be compa**  **ti ble**  **with air**  **oper ati**  **ons at**  **LGA, and**  **that the**  **P ANYNJ**  **took reasonable**  **ef fo** **rts to induce the**  **DSNY to**  **change the**  **height, loca** 

**tion, design**  **and operation**  **of the**  **NSMTS so**  **that the**  **NSMTS will**  **be constructed**  **and operated**  **consi stent**  **with FAA**  **determina tions**  **and ad** **vice. 1**  **8 7**  **In additi**  **on, the**  **P ANYNJ**  **contends that**  **it parti**  **cipated in**  **the FA** **A's Determina**  **ti ons**  **of No Hazard**  **to Air**  **Navigati on**  **with respect**  **to the**  **NSMTS during**  **whi ch**  **the DSNY**  **agreed to**  **change the**  **hei ght**  **and loca**  **tion of**  **the NSMTS.**  **1 88**  **The PANYNJ argues**  **that the "des**  **cription of**  **what an**  **airport operator**  **'c ould' do**  **, or**  **what 'a** **ppropriate action may also**  **inclu de,'**  **is not an**  **endorsement of**  **the principles**  **espoused by**  **the Compla** **inants, that**  **to comply**  **with Grant**  **As surance**  **21 every conceivable**  **action must**  **be taken**  **to preven** **t what**  **Compla inants**  **identify as**  **a hazard**  **to air**  **na vigation**  **at LGA.**  **" 18**  **9 The**  **Director fo**  **und that**  **the Respondent passed**  **both prongs**  **of the**  **Keath y**  **test in**  **determi ning**  **whether an airport**  **sponsor is**  **in complia**  **nce with**  **Grant As**  **surance 21.**  **The record**  **shows that**  **the City**  **of New**  **York is**  **the owner**  **of the**  **land and**  **NSMTS. The**  **City is**  **not the**  **airport sponsor.**  **P ANYNJ**  **does not**  **have ju** **risdiction over**  **the land upon which the**  **NSMTS is**  **being construct** **ed. The**  **Director also**  **deter mined**  **that P**  **ANYNJ had**  **a program in**  **place, through the**  **Amended and**  **Restated Agreement**  **of Lease**  **of the**  **Municipal Air**  **Terminal s,**  **to evaluate**  **and restrict incompatible**  **land uses and uns**  **afe developm**  **ent at,**  **or aro**  **und, LGA**  **that would**  **interf**

**e r** **e w i** **th its use**  **fo r**  **airport pu**  **rposes. The**  **record again shows**  **that the**  **FAA ultima**  **tely determined**  **that the**  **proposed NSMTS**  **is located**  **outside of**  **the exi**  **sting and**  **ultimate RPZ**  **fo r**  **Runway 31.**  **Also discussed**  **previously, the**  **record shows that the**  **Respo ndent**  **took reasona** **ble and**  **appropriate actions**  **to prevent**  **the construct** **ion of**  **the NSMTS**  **after the FAA**  **issued a notice**  **presuming it was**  **a hazard**  **to air na viga** **tion, and**  **that the**  **Respondent also**  **took appropriate**  **action to**  **ensure the**  **NSMTS 's**  **compatibility with**  **safe air**  **operations at**  **LGA. Conseq** **uently, the**  **Associa te**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports concludes**  **that the**  **Directo r'**  **s finding**  **that Respondent's**  **actions with**  **respect to the**  **NSMTS were**  **reasonable under**  **Grant As**  **sura nce**  **21 is**  **supported by a**  **preponderance of**  **evidence in**  **the record.**  **3. Whether**  **the Port**  **Authority has**  **not taken**  **"appropriate action"**  **to ensure**  **that the**  **terminal airspace**  **will be**  **protected and**  **theref ore**  **fa iled**  **to comply with both**  **Grant Assurances**  **20 and**  **21.**

**186 Se**  **e, [** **Kea thy**  **v. City**  **of McKi** **nne y,**  **Tex as**  **and the**  **Collin County**  **Regional Ai** **rp ort,**  **FAA Do**  **c k et**  **No**

**. 16-03-**  **14, Dir** **ect or**  **'s De**  **termin at**  **io n,**  **p a ge**  **23] 187**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 22,**  **p a ge**  **43 188**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 22,**  **p a ge**  **44 189**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22**  **, p a** **ge 47**  **38 a.**  **Whether the**  **Director fa** **iled to**  **consider the**  **fa ct**  **that the**  **Port Authority**  **fa iled**  **to enf**  **orce the**  **lease provision**  **that prohibits**  **the city**  **fr om**  **building in**  **the Runway**  **Protection Zone**  **or any**  **obstruction or**  **hazards to**  **air navigation.**  **The Comp**  **lainants argue**  **that "the**  **most im**  **portant weapon**  **that the**  **Port Au** **thority has**  **in its**  **arsenal is**  **its lease with**  **the City of** **New Yo** **rk:' beca**  **use "the**  **City sp** **ec ifica** **ll y**  **ag reed**  **in its**  **lease with**  **the Port**  **Aut hority**  **that it**  **will not erect any**  **obstructions or**  **hazard s**  **to air**  **navigation, erect**  **any structures**  **in the**  **RPZ or erect**  **any structure**  **that penet**  **rates the sur** 

**faces. "190**  **The Compla** **inants contend**  **that the**  **NSMTS loca**  **tion was**  **meant to**  **be included**  **in the**  **area covered**  **by the**  **prohibitions contained**  **in the**  **Lease and**  **that P** **ANYNJ had the**  **auth ority**  **to stop**  **the construc** **tion of the**  **NSMTS and**  **fa iled**  **to do**  **so. 191**  **The Director**  **fo und**  **that under**  **the Amended**  **and Re**  **sta ted**  **Agreement of**  **Lease of**  **the Municipal**  **Air Terminal**  **s, the**  **PANYNJ "has**  **the right**  **to prevent**  **the establishment**  **of any**  **struct ure,**  **fa cility,**  **or natural**  **growth loca** 

**ted on**  **the airport,**  **which in**  **the opinion**  **of the**  **FAA or**  **reasonable o**  

# �**inion of**  **the Respondent,**  **cons titute**  **s a Hazard**  **to Air**  **Navigat ion**  **or an**  **incompat ible**  **land use."**  **1 2**  **The record**  **also shows the**  **FAA conducted**  **an ob**  **structi on**  **evaluati on of**  **the proposed NSMTS**  **on two sep** **arate occasions,**  **and the FAA**  **issued two No**  **Hazard Determina**  **tions. The**  **record shows**  **P ANYNJ**  **opposed both**  **FAA obstruction**  **evalua tions**  **of the**  **proposed NSMTS.**  **Only after**  **the completion**  **of its**  **due diligence,**  **did the**  **Respondent withdraw**  **its ob**  **je ctions**  **to the**  **NSMTS and**  **petition the**  **FAA to**  **review the**  **Determina tion**  **of No Hazard**  **to Air**  **Navigation fo** **r Aeronautical**  **Study No.**  **20 04-AEA** **-3 1**  **59-0E. Subse** **quently, the**  **FAA confirmed**  **that the**  **proposed NSMTS**  **does not**  **pose a**  **Hazard to Air**  **Naviga ti** **on when**  **it is**  **sued its**  **Determi nati**  **on of No**  **Hazard to**  **Air Navigat** **ion on**  **Se ptember**  **19 ,**  **2008. The**  **record also**  **showed that**  **from November**  **30, 2009,**  **until approximately**  **June 20**  **1 0 ,**  **the F** **AAIU SDA**  **panel of experts**  **conducted a**  **study to**  **evaluate the**  **NSMTS and**  **its compat** **ibili ty**  **with respect**  **to bird strike**  **s and**  **sa fe**  **air operations at LaGuardia**  **Airport. The**  **F AA** **IUSDA panel**  **of exper**  **ts concluded**  **that, with**  **design chang** **es, to**  **the NSM**  **T S**  **fac ility**  **and adherence**  **to certain**  **operational procedures,**  **the proposed NSMTS**  **would be**  **compatible with**  **saf**

**e air**  **oper ati**  **ons at LGA.**  **The record**  **shows that**  **the FAA**  **stud ied**  **the existing**  **ob structi**  **ons and the**  **NSMTS, and**  **that the**  **FAA, not**  **the PANYNJ,**  **made the**  **suggestion to**  **the City**  **of New**  **York, which**  **agreed to**  **implement the**  **Panel Report's**  **proposed mitigat** **i on**  **measure s**  **in order**  **to provide**  **an accepta**  **ble level of**  **safety fo** **r air**  **oper ati**  **ons at**  **LGA. Furt** **hermore ,**  **the documenta**  **tion fo**  **r lower**  **minimums fo** **r a precision**  **appro ach**  **fo r**  **Runway 31**  **was consid** **ered by**  **PANYNJ. P ANYNJ along**  **with the**  **FAA determined**  **that there**  **were a**  **nu mber**  **of obs** **tacles that**  **were already**  **in the**  **appro ach**  **to Runway**  **31. The**  **PANY NJ'**  **s appro** **ved Airport**  **Layout Pla** **n (ALP)**  **depicts the**  **ultimate RPZ**  **t o**  **be 1,**  **700 fe** **et in**  **length and that**  **the visibili** **ty minimums**  **below 3/**  **4 mile are not**  **fe asible**  **due to**  **the number**  **of obsta** 

**cles. As**  **the Director**  **fo und,**  **the lease**  **terms did not**  **require the**  **Respondent to**  **act because**  **the FAA**  **fo und**  **the NSMTS**  **did not**  **pose a hazard**  **to air**  **naviga tion,**  **and P ANYNJ**  **was reasonable**  **to rely** 

**19° FA**  **A Exhibit**  **I, Item**  **2 1 ,**  **pa ges**  **59 -60**  **191 FA** **A Exhibit**  **I, Item**  **2I, pa**  **ge 60**  **1 92**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 17,**  **pa ge**  **27 39** **on that**  **determina tion**  **after exercising**  **due diligence**  **in confirming**  **the determina**  **tion. The**  **Associa te**  **Admini strator**  **concludes that the**  **Director 's**  **findings were**  **based on a**  **preponderance of evidence in**  **the record.** 

**b. Whether**  **the Port**  **Authority fa**  **iled to**  **require an**  **avigation easement**  **such that**  **NSMTS would**  **not penetrate**  **the 34:**  **1 surf**  **ace. The**  **Compl ainants**  **argue that**  **the Por**  **t Authority**  **did not**  **seek an**  **avigati on**  **easeme nt**  **fr om**  **the City**  **of New**  **York fo**  **r the**  **airspace above**  **NSMTS, such**  **that it would not**  

# R **enetrate the**  **34: 1**  **surf ace**  **or any**  **other surf** 

**ace in**  **the departure**  **or approach**  **areas fo**  **r Runway**  **31. 93**  **The Comp**  **lainants contend**  **that under**  **Advisory Circular**  **1 5 0/5**  **30 0-**  **1 3 ,**  **when an**  **airport sponsor**  **cannot obtain**  **fe e**  **simple in**  **the RPZ,**  **that airport**  **operators obtain avigati**  **on easements,**  **not only**  **fo r**  **the RPZ**  **but fo**  **r all**  **areas in**  **the approach**  **and departure**  **surf ac**  **es. 1**  **94 The**  **Associa**

**te Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **has previously**  **fo und**  **that the**  **FAA had**  **determined that**  **the NSMTS**  **is outside**  **the existing**  **and ultimate**  **RPZ of**  **LGA Runway**  **31 in**  **a separate**  **FAA administrative**  **pr ocess.**  **195 These**  **findings are**  **not reviewa**  **ble in this**  **Part 1 6** 

**. Conseq** **uently, no**  **further discussion**  **on this**  **specific iss** **ue on**  **appeal will**  **be considered.** 

**c. Whether**  **the Port**  **Authority should not have**  **withdrawn its Petition**  **fo r**  **Review. The**  **Comp lainants**  **argue that the**  **Respondent should**  **not have**  **withdrawn its**  **Petition fo**  **r Review**  **based on**  **a number**  **of other**  **issues in**  **the FA** **A's Determina**  **tions ofNo**  **Hazard that**  **it had**  **rai sed**  **that went**  **una**

**nswered. The**  **Complai nants**  **argue that**  **the se**  **iss ues**  **are significa** **nt enough**  **fo r**  **the Port**  **Authority to**  **have continued**  **to support**  **its Petition**  **fo r**  **Review. The**  **Compla inants**  **argue that none**  **of these**  **i ssues**  **have been**  **resolved and**  **the Director did**  **not addre**  **ss them**  **in his**  **Determina**

**tion. 19** **6 The**  **Associa**

**te Admini**  **strator fo** **r Airports**  **finds that**  **three determina**  **tions that**  **the proposed**  **NSMTS would no** **t be a**  **hazard to**  **air na**  **vigation pursuant**  **to 14**  **CFR §**  **77.35 are**  **final agency**  **actions and are**  **outside this**  **Part 16**  **proceeding. The Compla** **inants previously have been**  **advi sed**  **that such**  **cha llenges**  **are set**  **fo rth**  **in Subpart**  **D of**  **Part 77**  **of Title**  **14 of**  **the Code**  **of Federal**  **Regulations and are outside**  **the scope**  **of Part**  **1 6**

**. Conseq** **uently, this**  **specific iss** **ue on**  **appeal is re j**  **ected. d.**  **Whether the**  **Port Authority**  **should have**  **fa iled**  **to object**  **to the**  **Panel Report.**  **The Compl** **ainants contend**  **that the**  **Port Authority**  **should have**  **obj ected to**  **the Panel**  **Report because**  **"it do**  **es not**  **take into**  **account the**  **sy nergistic**  **construction of**  **the NSMTS**  **would have**  **on the**  **alread**

**y significant**  **bird strike**  **issue at**  **LaGu ardia.**  **" 197**  **The Complainants**  **also contend**  **that**

**1 93**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It**  **em 21,**  **pa ges**  **60 -61**  **1 94**  **FAA Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **21, pa** **ge 60**  **1 95**  **See, FAA**  **Exhibit 1, Item**  **17, pa** **ge 38**  **citing FAA**  **Exh i** **bit 1,**  **It em**  **1, exhibit 20 1**  **9 6**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **62 1**  **97 FAA**  **Exhibit 1, Item**  **22, pa** **ges 63-**  **64 40** **the Port**  **Authority biologis** **t's parti**  **cipation on**  **the panel**  **did not**  **equate with**  **her support**  **of the** 

**pan el**  **'s conclusions,**  **and the**  **Compl ainants**  **allege that**  **poss ibil**  **ity was**  **ignored by**  **the Director**  **19 8**  **The Compla** **inan**

**t s argue**  **that by**  **fai ling**  **to ob**  **ject to**  **the Panel**  **Report, the**  **Port Authority**  **fai led**  **in its**  **duty to**  **protec t**  **LaGuardi a**  **fr om**  **an airport**  **hazard and**  **an incompa**  **tible land**  **use. 1**  **99 Finally,**  **the Compl**  **ainants argue that**  **PANY NJ**  **'s relia**  **nce on**  **the Panel**  **Reports mitigation measures does**  **not ''protect**  **itself**

**fr om**  **violations of**  **the Grant As**  **surances. "** **200 The record**  **shows that**  **the FAA**  **advi sed**  **in its**  **Feb ruary**  **28, 20**  **1 1,**  **dismissal letter**  **that alleged**  **inadequac ies**  **of DO** **T's commissioned panel**  **report, Evaluation**  **of the**  **No rth**  **Sh ore**  **Ma rine**  **Tr ans**  **fe r**  **Sta tion**  **and Its**  **Com patibility with**  **Res**

**pect to Bird**  **Strikes and**  **Sa fe**  **Op erations**  **at LaGu** **ardia Ai** **rp ort**  **appeared to**  **be outside the**  **scope of**  **FA A's**  **authority under**  **14 CFR**  **Part 16** 

**. 201**  **The Direc** **t or**  **relied on**  **the Compl** **ainants statements**  **that "the**  **amended com**  **pl aint**  **do es**  **not attack**  **the validity**  **of the**  **Panel Re**  **port. "** **202 The record**  **shows that**  **the Compla**  **inants provided**  **pu**

**blic comments**  **to the**  **draft report**  **that were**  **incorporated into the**  **final Panel Report. However,**  **throughout the**  **Complainants' Appeal,**  **there are**  **several exam ples**  **of attacks**  **on the**  **validity of**  **the Panel**  **Report. 203**  **This is**  **not the**  **appropriate fo**  **rum to**  **question the**  **validity of the**  **Panel Report.**  **Consequently, the**  **Asso ciate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports concludes**  **these specific**  **issues are**  **outside the**  **pur view**  **of the**  **Part 16**  **process and**  **dismisses them.**  **IX. CONCLUSION**  **The FA** **A's role**  **in this**  **Appeal is**  **to determine**  **whether the Director erred**  **in findings**  **of fa**  **ct or**  **conclusions of**  **law in iss** **uing the**  **Directo r's**  **Determina tion.**  **The Assoc** **iate Admini**  **strator addre**  **ssed the**  **issues ra** 

**ised by**  **the Complain** 

**ants and**  **finds that**  **the Director**  **has not**  **erred. Specifica** **lly, upon**  **an app**  **eal of**  **a Part**  **16 Director**  **'s Determina**  **tion, the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **must determine**  **whether (a)**  **the findings**  **of fa**  **ct made by**  **the Director**  **are supported**  **by a preponderance**  **of reliable, probative, and**  **substantial evidence,**  **and (b)**  **each conclusion**  **of law**  **is made**  **in accordance**  **with app**  **licable law,**  **precedent, and**  **public policy.**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.33( e);**  **see, e.g** **. , Ricks**  **v Millin** 

**gt on**  **Munici**

**pal Airpo**  **rt, FAA**  **Docket No.**  **1 6 -98-**  **19 (December**  **30, 1 9**  **99) (Final**  **Decision and**  **Order, page**  **21 ).**  **In ar** **riving at**  **a final**  **decision on**  **this Appeal, the FAA has reexamined**  **the record,**  **including the**  **Direct or'**  **s Determina** 

**tion, the**  **adm ini**  **stra**

**tive record supporting**  **the Director**  **'s Determination,**  **the Appeal**  **and Reply**  **submitted by**  **the parti**  **es, and**  **applicable law**  **and policy.**  **Based on this**  **reexami nati**  **on, the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **concludes that**  **the Directo**  **r's Determination**  **is supported**  **by a**  **preponderance of**  **reliable, probat** **ive, and**  **substantial evidence,**  **and is**  **consi stent**  **with app**  **licable law,**  **precedent, and FAA policy.**  **The Appeal**  **does not**  **contain persuasive** 

**1 98**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **64 1**  **99 FA**  **A Exhibit**  **1, It** **em 22,**  **pa ge**  **64 20°**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1, Item**  **22, Pa** **ge 65**  **201 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 17,**  **pa ge**  **34, citing**  **FA A**  **Exhibit 1,**  **It em**  **2, Att** **ac hme**  **nt A**  **202 FAA**  **Exhibit 1,**  **Item 17,**  **pa ge**  **34 203**  **See FAA**  **Ex hibit**  **1, Item**  **22, pa** **ges 4,**  **10, 22,**  **23 41** **arguments suf**  **fici ent**  **to reverse**  **any portion**  **of the**  **Direct or**  **'s Determination**  **or to**  **reach a**  **conclusion that**  **the FAA**  **should be recused**  **from deciding**  **this Appeal.**  **The Assoc**  **iate Admini**  **strator affirms the**  **Direct or'**  **s Determina**  **tion. This**  **decision constitutes**  **the final**  **decision of the**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini strator**  **fo r**  **Airports pursuant**  **to 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .33(** **a). ORDER**  **ACCORDINGLY, it**  **is hereby**  **ORDERED that**  **(1) the**  **Director 's**  **De termina**  **tion is**  **af firmed,**  **and (2)**  **the Appeal**  **is dismissed,**  **pursuant to**  **14 CFR**  **§ 1 6**  **.33. RIGHT**  **OF APPEAL**  **A party**  **to this**  **decision disclosing a**  **substantial interest**  **in the**  **Final Decision**  **and Order**  **of the**  **Federal Aviation**  **Administration may file**  **a petition**  **fo r**  **review pursua** **nt to**  **49 U.S.C.**  **§ 46**  **1 10**  **, in**  **the United**  **State s**  **Court of**  **Appeals fo**  **r the**  **Di strict**  **of Columbia**  **Circuit or in**  **the Court**  **of Appeals of**  **the United States**  **fo r**  **the Circuit**  **in which**  **the person**  **resides or**  **has its principal**  **place of**  **busin ess.**  **The petition**  **must be**  **filed not**  **later than**  **60 days after**  **a Final**  **Decision and Order**  **has been served**  **on the**  **party. 14**  **CFR §**  **1 6 .247(a).** 

**Eduardo A.**  **Angele Associate**  **Administrator fo**  **r Airports** 

**42 Kenneth**  **D. Paskar**  **and Friends**  **of LaGuardia**  **Airport, Inc.**  **v. The**  **Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey** 

**FAA Docket**  **No. 16**  **-1 1-**  **04 INDEX**  **OF ADMINI**  **STRATIVE RECORD**  **The fo**  **llow**

**ing documents**  **(Items) constitute**  **the administrative**  **record in**  **this proceeding:**  **FAA Exhibit**  **1: Item**  **1 - April**  **1 2 ,**  **20 1**  **1, Amended**  **Complaint and**  **Request fo** **r Investigation**  **Pursuant to**  **14 CFR**  **Part 1 6**  **, Kenneth**  **D. Paskar**  **and Friends**  **of LaGuardia Airport,**  **In c.,**  **v. The**  **City of**  **New York**  **and The**  **Port Authority**  **of New York and New Jersey**  **Exhibit 1 -**  **January 20,**  **201 1,**  **Aimav .com**  **website fo**  **r La**  **Guardia Airport**  **(LGA), http**  **://aimav .c** **om/airp ort!KLGA**  **Exhibit 2 -**  **Februa**

**r y**  **12 ,**  **20 1**  **1, Dec** **larati on**  **of Steven**  **M. Ta**  **ber, Esq.**  **Exhibit 3 -**  **November 1 2**  **, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Gibson Dunn**  **Letter to**  **the General**  **Counsel, Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey Exhibit**  **4 - December**  **1 4 ,**  **20 1 0**  **, Gibson**  **Dunn Letter**  **to New**  **York City**  **Corporati on**  **Counsel Exhibit**  **5 - January**  **2007, City**  **of New**  **York Depa**  **rtment of**  **Sa nitati**  **on, Engineering Report**  **fo r**  **the North**  **Shore Marine**  **Transf er**  **Stati on,**  **Part 360**  **Permit Application**  **Exhibit 6 -**  **Apri l**  **20 1 0**  **, USDA**  **and FAA**  **Draft Study,**  **Evaluation of**  **the North**  **Shore Marine**  **Tran sf**  **er Station and**  **Its Compatibility**  **with Respect**  **to Bird**  **Strikes and**  **Saf e**  **Air Operations**  **a**

**t LGA**  **Exhibit 7 -**  **January 28,**  **2005, FAA**  **Det erminati**  **on of Presumed Hazard**  **Exhibit 8 -**  **May 9,**  **2005, Port**  **Authority of NY**  **& NJ**  **Letter to**  **FAA regarding**  **aeronauti cal**  **study Exhibit**  **9 - September**  **1 8 ,**  **2006, FAA**  **Determina tion**  **ofN o**  **Hazard Exhibit**  **1 0**

**- October**  **1 7 ,**  **2006, Petition**  **of the**  **Port Au**  **thority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey fo**  **r Review**  **of Determination**  **of No**  **Hazard Exhibit**  **1 1**

**- October**  **28, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **New York Fli**  **ght Delays**  **Report Exhibit**  **12**

**- October**  **23, 2006,**  **Queens Deleg** **at ion**  **Letter to**  **the FAA**  **Admini strator** 

**43 Exhibit**  **13**

**- Febr** **uary 28,**  **2007, Port**  **Authority ofNY**  **& NJ**  **Letter to**  **FAA Airspace**  **& Rules**

**Branch Exhibit**  **1 4**

**- March**  **1 2 ,**  **2007, Email**  **chain from FAA**  **NY ADO,**  **re: tran**  **sf er**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 1 5** 

**- March**  **26, 2007,**  **Email chain fr** **om FAA**  **OES, re:**  **07 - 1**  **1 6 3/1**  **1 6 9**  **Exhibit 16** 

**- July**  **2, 2007,**  **Port Authority**  **of NY & NJ Letter**  **to FAA**  **NY Airports Di**  **strict Of**  **fice Exhibit**  **17**

**- February**  **20, 2008,**  **City of NY**  **Letter to**  **the Executive**  **Director, The**  **Port Authority**  **of NY**  **& N J**  **Exhibit 1 8**  **- August 30,**  **20 10**  **, Ferrara**  **Bros. Building**  **Mate rials**  **Cor p.,**  **Letter to**  **Mr. Ken Paskar**  **Exhibit 19** 

**- Dece** **mber 8,**  **20 10**  **, Willi** **ams Aviati** **on Con** **sultants Letter to**  **Ken Paskar**  **Exhibit 20** 

**- May**  **29, 2008,**  **Port Authority**  **of NY**  **& NJ**  **Letter to**  **FAA OES**  **Exhibit 21**  **- October 1 0**  **, 2008,**  **Email chain**  **fr om**  **FAA AEA-620,**  **re: tran** **sf er**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 22** 

**- September**  **1 9 ,**  **2008, FAA**  **Determination of**  **No Hazard**  **Exhibit 23 - October**  **24, 2008,**  **FAA Determinati** **on of No**  **Hazard Exhibit**  **24 - March**  **1 2 ,**  **2009, Queens**  **Chronicle Article,**  **re: tran**  **sf er**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 25**  **- January**  **4, 20**  **11 (access**  **date ),**  **Bill Su**  **mmary & Stat** **us, H.**  **proposed Arndt.**  **1 5 9**  **Exhibit 26** 

**- Undate**  **d, Congression** **al Record**  **page H5976,**  **re: transfer**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 27** 

**- June**  **1 0,**  **2009, FAA**  **Letter to**  **NYC Deputy**  **Commission er**  **Szarpanski Exhibit**  **28 - July**  **9, 2009,**  **NYC Letter**  **to FAA**  **Exhibit 29** 

**- February**  **20 10**  **, FAA**  **Evaluati on**  **of Trash-** **Tran sf**  **er Facilities**  **as Bird**  **Att ractants**  **Exhibit 30** 

**- May**  **21, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Ackerman and**  **Crowley letter**  **to FAA**  **Admini strator**  **Exhibit 31** 

**- May**  **21, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **NY Assem** **blywoman Mayersohn**  **Letter to**  **the Executive**  **Director, Port**  **Authority of**  **NY &**  **NJ Exhibit**  **32**

**- May**  **24, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Air Line**  **Pilots Associa**  **tion Comments**  **Exhibit 33** 

**- May**  **1 4,**  **20 1 0**  **, DeFusco**  **comments on**  **Prelimi nary**  **Asse ssment**  **and Recomm**  **endati ons**  **Regarding Potential**  **Bird Hazards**  **to Aviati**  **on from**  **the Proposed**  **North Shore Marine**  **Transf**

**er Stati**  **on, Queens,**  **New York** 
**44 Exhibit**  **34**

**- Paskar**  **submittal ,**  **re: tran** **sf er station**  **(1) March**  **1 1 ,**  **2009, Steven**  **D. Garber,**  **PhD, Submittal**  **(2) May 6,**  **2009, Suppleme** **ntal Report**  **(3) May**  **14 ,**  **20 1 0**  **, DeFusco**  **comments (same**  **as 33**  **and 45)**  **(4) May**  **24, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Paskar Response**  **to Evalua**  **tion of**  **the North**  **Shore Marine**  **Tran sf**  **er Sta**  **tion April**  **20 10**  **Report Exhibit**  **35**

**- September**  **2, 20**  **1 0 , Technical**  **Panel Report, with**  **tran smittal**  **letters Exhibit**  **36**

**- September 2,**  **20 1 0**  **, Letter**  **from the Technical**  **Panel to**  **Secr etary**  **LaHood Exhibit**  **37**

**- September**  **2, 20**  **1 0 , FAA**  **Letter to**  **Mr. Harry**  **Szarp anski,**  **NYC Exhibit**  **38**

**- September**  **3, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **NYC (Harry**  **Szarpanski) Letter**  **to FAA Exhibit**  **39**
**- February**  **22, 2007,**  **FAA Email**  **chain, re:**  **tra nsf**  **er stati**  **on Exhibit**  **40**

**- Undated,**  **Google Ea**  **rth Printout**  **of airport**  **runway Exhibit**  **41**

**- March**  **1 3 ,**  **2007, FAA**  **Email chain,**  **re: tran** **sf er**  **station Exhibit**  **42**

**- October**  **30, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Clea ry**  **Email Exhibit**  **43**

**- July**  **30, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Hughes comment**  **regarding tra** **nsf er**  **stati on**  **Exhibit 44 -**  **October 1 7**  **, 2002,**  **Dela ware**  **Environmental Appeals**  **Boa rd,**  **Appeal No.**  **200 0-**  **1 0 ,**  **Dover AFB,**  **Final Order**  **and Decision**  **Exhibit 45** 

**- May**  **14 ,**  **20 1 0**  **, DeFusco**  **comments (same**  **as 33 and**  **34(3)) Exhibit**  **46 - Unda** 

**ted, Merritt**  **comments regarding**  **tran sf**  **er sta**  **tion Exhibit**  **47**

**- May**  **26, 2009,**  **Daily News**  **Ar ticle,**  **re: tran** **sf**

**er stati**  **on Exhibit**  **48**

**- September**  **20 1 0**  **, Hall**  **& Ass**  **ociates LLC,**  **comments on**  **tran sf**  **er station**  **Exhibit 49** 

**- September**  **30, 20**  **1 0 ,**  **Moergeli comments**  **on tra** **nsfer sta**  **tion Exhibit 50** 

**- Undated,**  **Brady comments**  **on transfer**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 51** 

**- Undated,**  **Will iams**  **Aviati on**  **Consul tants**  **comments on**  **transf er**  **sta tion**  **Exhibit 51a**  **- Unda**

**ted, Williams**  **Aviation Consu** **ltants comments on**  **tran sf**  **er sta**  **tion Exhibit 52** 
**- 2005,**  **Wildlif e**  **Hazard Management**  **at Air**  **ports: A Manual**  **fo r**  **Airport Personnel** 

**45 Exhibit**  **53**

**- 2000,**  **LaGuardia Airport Wildl**  **ife Hazard**  **Asses sment** 

**Exhibit 54** 

**- March**  **23, 2009,**  **Port Authority**  **Email chain**  **Exhibit 55** 

**- November**  **24, 2004, Amended**  **and Restated Agreement**  **of Lease**  **of the**  **Municipal Air**  **Terminal s,**  **City of**  **New York**  **and The**  **Port Authority**  **ofNY &**  **NJ Item**  **A - May**  **9, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Order extending**  **time period**  **to docket or dismiss**  **complaint. Item**  **2 - May**  **24, 20**  **1 1 , FAA**  **Partial Dis** **missal Order**  **and Notice of**  **Do cketing,**  **FAA Docket**  **No. 16-1 1-**  **04 Attachment**  **A.**

**- February**  **28, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **FAA letter to Steven M.**  **Tab er,**  **Esq. dismissing Compla** **int without**  **pre**

**ju dice,**  **FAA Dock** **et No.**  **16 -1**  **1- 02,**  **with January**  **13, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **FAA Airport**  **Master Record**  **(Form 5010** **), LaGuardia**  **Airport Attachment**  **B.**

**- May**  **1 8 ,**  **201 1,**  **Grant History Report**  **fo r**  **LaGuardia Attachment**  **C.**

**- May**  **5, 20**  **1 1 , FAA**  **Airport Master**  **Record (Form**  **50 1 0**  **), LaGuar**  **dia Airport**  **Attachment D.** 

**- March**  **26, 20**  **10 (date**  **of of**  **f er),**  **FAA Grant**  **Agreement with**  **the Port**  **Authority of**  **NY & N** **J Item**  **3 - June**  **10 ,**  **20 1 1**  **, Responden**  **t' s**  **Answer to**  **Amended Com** **plaint Attachment**  **A. -**  **June 1 0**  **, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Motion to**  **Dismiss Amended**  **Comp laint**  **Attachment B.** 

**- June**  **1 0 ,**  **20 1 1**  **, Statement**  **of Facts**  **in Support**  **of Answer**  **to Amended**  **Compla int**  **and Motion**  **to Dismiss**  **Amended Compla** **int Attachment**  **C.**

**- June**  **6, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Decla rati**  **on of**  **Tom Bock**  **Attac hment**  **D.**

**- June**  **1 0 ,**  **20 1 1**  **, Memorandum**  **of Po**  **ints and**  **Authorit ies**  **in Support**  **of Motion to**  **Dismiss Amended**  **Compla int**  **Exhibit A.** 

**- E-mail**  **dated June**  **6, 20**  **11 to**  **Tom Bock**  **from Kevin**  **Thomp son,**  **Eastern Flig** **ht Procedures**  **Office, FAA**  **and at tachment**  **Exhibit B.** 

**- Airport Master**  **Record**

**- LaGuardi** **a Airport**  **Exhibit C.** 
**- Notice**  **of Proposed**  **Co nstructi**  **on or**  **Alterati on**  **(Form 7460-**  **1 ) ,**  **with respect to**  **Nor th**  **Shore Marine**  **Transf**

**er Stati on ("** 

**NSMTS"), received**  **by FAA**  **November 1 0**  **, 2004**  **Exhibit D.**  **- Determina** 

**tion of No**  **Hazard To**  **Air Navigat** **ion, Aeronauti**  **cal Study**  **No. 2004- AEA-3**  **1 5 9-0E.**  **(Se pt.**  **1 8 ,**  **2006)**

**46 Exhibit**  **E.**

**- Compla**  **int in**  **Paskar v.**  **City of**  **New York**  **and The Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey, Do**  **cket No.**  **1 6 -1**  **1- 02,**  **dated Feb** **ruary 12**  **, 20**  **11 Exhibit**  **F.**

**- FAA**  **Letter determina** **tion dated**  **Febr uary**  **28, 20**  **1 1,**  **dismissing Compla** **int in**  **Paskar v.**  **City of**  **New York**  **and The**  **Port Authority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey,**  **Doc ket**  **No. 1 6**  **-1 1 -**  **02 Item**  **4 - June**  **21, 201**  **1, Comp**  **lainants Paskar**  **and FOL** **A's Unopposed**  **Motion fo** **r Extension**  **of Time**  **to File**  **Reply Item**  **5 - June**  **27, 20**  **1 1 , FAA**  **Order Gran** **ting Extension**  **of Time**  **Item 6 -**  **July 1 2**  **, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Compla inants**  **Paskar and**  **FOL A's**  **Consolid at** **ed Reply**  **to Responden**  **t's Answer**  **and Motion**  **to Dismiss**  **Attac hment**  **A - July**  **1 1 ,**  **20 1**  **1, Decla**  **ra tion**  **of Kenneth**  **D. Paskar**  **Attachment B.** 

**- July**  **1 2 ,**  **201 1,**  **Decla rati**  **on of**  **James Hall**  **Attac hment**  **C.**

**- June**  **6, 20**  **1 1,**  **Decla ration**  **of Charles**  **Hannon Att** **achment D.**  **- July**  **8, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Dec lara**  **tion of Russell**  **Defusco Attachment**  **E.**

**- July**  **6, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Decla ra**  **tion of**  **Ronald Merritt**  **Attachment F.** 

**- July**  **7, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Dec larati**  **on of**  **Michael Matrone**  **Attachment G.** 
**- July 6,**  **201 1,**  **Dec lara**  **tion of**  **Barry Yurti**  **s, with**  **attac hments**  **Exhibit 1 -**  **May 6,**  **2009, Stephen**  **Garb er,**  **Ph D.,**  **Supple mental**  **Report to**  **the NYC**  **DEC Ref**  **erence the**  **North Shore**  **Marine Transfer**  **Station, with**  **at tachments**  **Exhibit 2 -**  **LGA Conical**  **Surf aces**  **Item 7 -**  **July 1 5**  **, 20**  **1 1,**  **Responden t's**  **Unopposed Motion**  **fo r**  **Extension of**  **Time to**  **Serve and**  **File Rebuttal**  **Item 8 -**  **July 21,**  **20 1 1**  **, FAA Order**  **Gran ting**  **Extension of**  **Time Item**  **9 - July**  **29, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Rebuttal Memorandum**  **of Points**  **and Aut** **horiti es**  **in Support**  **of Motion of**  **the Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey to**  **Dismiss Amended**  **Compla int**  **Attachment A.** 

**- July**  **29, 20**  **11, Dec**  **larati on**  **of Tom Bock**  **Item B -**  **January 4,**  **20 1 2**  **, Letter**  **fr om**  **At torney**  **Taber inquiring**  **on is**  **suance of**  **Direct or'**  **s Determina** 

**tion**

**47 Item**  **10**

**- January**  **20, 20 1 2**  **, FAA**  **Notice of**  **Extension of**  **Time fo**  **r is**  **suance of**  **Determination**

**Item 1 1** 

**- June**  **1 2 ,**  **20 1 2**  **, Summary**  **Order On**  **Petition to**  **Review an**  **Order of**  **the Federal**  **Aviati on**  **Admini stra** 

**tion, United**  **States Court**  **of Appeals**  **fo r**  **the Se**  **cond Circuit,**  **Kenneth D.**  **Paskar; and**  **Friends of**  **LaGuardia Airport,**  **Inc. (Petitioners)**  **v. the**  **Federal Aviation**  **Administ rati**  **on; Michael**  **P. Huerta,**  **Acting Admini**  **stra tor,**  **Federal Aviation**  **Admini stra** **tion (Respondents)**  **[ C ase**  **No. 1 1**  **-2720 -ag]**  **Item 12** 
**- November**  **28, 20**  **1 1 ,**  **Supreme Court**  **of Queens**  **Cou nty**  **Decision, Regarding The**  **Matter of**  **the Applica** 

**tion of**  **Kenneth Paskar**  **and FRIENDS**  **OF LAGUARDIA**  **AIRPORT, IN**  **C., Petitioners,**  **For a**  **Judgment Pursuant**  **to CPLR**  **Arti cle**  **78 against**  **New York**  **State Depa**  **rtment of**  **Environmental Conservation,**  **PETER M. IW**  **ANOWICZ and NEW YORK**  **CITY DEPARTMENT**  **OF SANITATION,**  **Respondents Item**  **13**

**- January,**  **24, 1 9**  **97, FAA**  **Approved Airport**  **Layout Plan fo** **r LaGuardi** **a Airport**  **Item 14**  **- Apri**  **l 25,**  **20 1 2**  **, FAA**  **Notice of**  **Exte nsion**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Direct** **or 's**  **Determina**

**tion Item**  **15 -**  **July 1 6**  **, 20**  **1 2 ,**  **FAA Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Director' s**  **Determination Item**  **16**

**- September**  **1 0 ,**  **20 1 2**  **, FAA Notice**  **of Exte** **nsion of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Director**  **'s Determina** 

**tion Item**  **1 7**

**- September 27,**  **20 1 2**  **, Director**  **'s Determina**  **tion Item**  **18 -**  **Octobe r**  **25, 20**  **1 2 ,**  **Compla inan** **ts' Unopposed**  **Motion fo** **r Extension**  **of Time**  **to File**  **Appeal of**  **Directo r's**  **Determina tion**  **Item 19** 
**- January**  **7, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **Compla inan**  **ts' Seco** **nd Unopp** **osed Motion**  **fo r**  **an Extension**  **of Time**  **to File Appeal**  **Item 20**  **- Febr** **uary 4,**  **20 1 3**  **, FAA Order**  **granti ng**  **Complainan ts**  **' Second**  **Unop posed**  **Motion fo**  **r an**  **Ext ension**  **of Time**  **to File**  **Appeal Item**  **21**
**- Febr** 

**uary 4,**  **20 1 3**  **, Compla** 

**inan ts'**  **Appeal from the Directo** **r's Determination**  **dated September**  **27, 20**  **13 Item**  **22**
**- Apri**  **l 3**  **, 20**  **1 3 , Reply**  **of the**  **Port Authority**  **ofNew York**  **and New**  **Jersey to**  **Assoc iate**  **Admini stra** 

**tor fo**  **r Airports**  **from Direct** **or' s**  **Determination Item**  **23**
**- June**  **1, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **Compla inan**  **ts' Motion**  **fo r**  **Reconsideration or**  **Remand Exhibit**  **A - Direc** **t or'**  **s Determination**  **iss ued**  **September 27, 20**  **12**

**48 Exhibit**  **B - Corrected**  **April 22,**  **20 13,**  **Paskar v.**  **US. De**  **partm ent**  **of Tr** **ans**

**portation, Doc** **ket No.**  **1 0- 46**  **1 2-a** **g, Order**  **Dismissing Petition**  **fo r**  **Review, United**  **State s Court**  **of Appeals**  **fo r**  **the Seco**  **nd Circuit**  **Item 24** 
**- June**  **13, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **Opposition of**  **the Port**  **Authority of**  **New York**  **and New**  **Jersey to**  **Comp lainants**  **Motion fo** **r Reconsi**  **dera tion or**  **Remand Item**  **25**
**- June**  **28, 20**  **1 3 ,**  **FAA Notice of**  **Extension of**  **Time fo** **r is**  **suance of Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to October**  **1 1 ,**  **20 13**  **Item 26** 
**- October**  **1 5 ,**  **20 13,**  **FAA Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to January**  **9, 2014**  **Item 27** 
**- January**  **1 4 ,**  **20 1 4**  **, FAA Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to April**  **4, 2014**  **Item 28** 
**- July**  **22, 20**  **1 4 , FAA**  **Notice of**  **Extension of** **Time fo** **r is**  **suance of** **Final Agency**  **Decision to**  **Dece mber**  **5, 20**  **14 Item**  **29**
**- Decem** **b er**  **1 7 ,**  **20 14**  **, FAA Notice**  **of Extension**  **of Time**  **fo r**  **is suance**  **of Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to Febr** **uary 27,**  **20 15**  **Item 30**  **- January**  **1 7 ,**  **20 1 5**  **, Compla**  **inan ts'**  **Motion to**  **Supplement Record**  **and Amend**  **Appeal Item**  **3 1**
**- January**  **28, 20**  **1 5 ,**  **Responden t's**  **Opposition to**  **Comp lainan**  **ts' Motion**  **to Supplem**  **ent Record**  **and Amend**  **Appeal and**  **sepa rate**  **Motion to**  **Supplement Record**  **and Amend**  **Reply Item**  **32 -**  **March 25,**  **20 1 5**  **, FAA**  **Notice of**  **Extension of**  **Time fo** **r is**  **suance of**  **the Final**  **Agency Decision**  **to June**  **1 9 ,**  **20 15**  **Item 33**  **- City**  **ofNew York**  **and Port**  **Auth ority**  **of New**  **York and**  **New Jersey**  **Change of**  **Addre ss**  **dated April**  **3, 20**  **15**

**49**