1HE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ 

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 

OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

ARNOLD D. KOLIKOFF 

ATTORNEY 

lAW DEPARTMENT 

14TH FLOOR 

225 PARK AVENUE SOUTH 

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003 

DIRECT DIAL: 

(212)435-3451 

January 28, 2015 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-61 0 

Federal Aviation Administration 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 9 2015 

Room923 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington D.C. 20591 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Re: Kenneth D. Paskar v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Docket 

Number 16-11-04. 

To whom it may concern: 

Please find enclosed for filing the Opposition Of The Port Authority OfN ew York And 

New Jersey To Complainants' Motion To Supplement Record And Amend Appeal and Motion 

Of The Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey To Supplement Record And Amend Reply 

submitted by the Respondent The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the abovecaptioned matter. An unbound original document and three bound copies are enclosed. 

Copy to: Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

1 League, #60036 

Irvine, California 92602 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group, P.C. 

13 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Attorney for Complainants 

Yours truly, 

l/70'041/l /t:A;q#~ Arnold D. Kolikoff // 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

KENNETH D. PASKAR and FRIENDS OF LAGUARDIA AIRPORT, 

INC., 

Complainants, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, an 

Interstate Compact agency pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. 

Constitution, 

Respondent. 

-------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

Docket No. 

16-11-04 

OPPOSITION OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY TO 

COMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD AND AMEND APPEAL 

and 

MOTION OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY TO 

SUPPLEMENT RECORD AND AMEND REPLY 

Documents in this proceeding should be served upon the following individuals: 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff 

Attorney 

Law Department 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

225 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor 

NewYork,N.Y. 10003 

Telephone: (212) 435-3451 

Attorneys for Respondent 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

KENNETH D. PASKAR and FRIENDS OF LAGUARDIA AIRPORT, 

INC., 

Complainants, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, an 

Interstate Compact agency pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. 

Constitution, 

Respondent. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

Docket No. 

16-11-04 

OPPOSITION OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY TO 

COMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD AND AMEND APPEAL 

and 

MOTION OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY TO 

SUPPLEMENT RECORD AND AMEND REPLY 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.19 and 16.33, Respondent The Port Authority ofNewYork 

and New Jersey ("the Port Authority"), hereby submits this Opposition of The Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey to Complainants' Motion To Supplement Record And Amend Appeal 

and Motion Of The Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey To Supplement Record And 

Amend Appeal. 
INTRODUCTION 

In this Part 16 Proceeding, Complainants claimed that the Port Authority and Respondent 

The City ofNew York ("City")1 were in violation of Grant Assurances 19, 20, 21, and 34 

because the construction by the Department of Sanitation of the City of New York of the North 

Shore Marine Transfer Station ("NSMTS") on property outside LaGuardia Airport ("LGA") will 

create hazards to air navigation for aircraft using LGA. By Director's Determination dated 

September 27, 2012, the Director of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (the 

"Director") found that the Port Authority was not in violation of Grant Assurances 5,2 19, 20, 21, 

and 34, and ordered that the Complainants' Amended Complainf be dismissed. 

Complainants filed their Appeal from the Director's Determination with the Associate 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration ("Associate Administrator") the pursuant 

to 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 on February 4, 2013. The Port Authority filed its Reply to Complainant's 

Appeal on April 3, 2013. The Associate Administrator has not yet issued a decision on the 

Appeal. By Notice of Extension of Time dated December 17, 2014, the Associate Administrator 

gave notice that the date when the final agency decision would be issued was extended to on or 

about February 27,2015. 

1 The Part 16 Proceeding against the City was dismissed in a Partial Dismissal Order and Notice of 

Docketing, dated May 24, 2011. Item 2. Reference to "Items" is to documents as identified as part of 

Exhibit 1 in the Index of Administrative Record rumexed to the Director's Determination. A copy of that 

document is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. 

2 The Port Authority's compliance with Grru1t Assurance 5 was an issue raised by the Director sua sponte. 

3 Complainants original Complaint dated February 12, 2011 was dismissed without prejudice by letter 

dated February 28, 2011. Item 3, Exhibit F. 

2 
By the instant Complainants' Motion To Supplement Record And Amend Appeal,4 

Complainants' seek to amend the record upon which the Director's Determination was based and 

amend their argument on appeal. The subject of Complainants' Motion are pages from the 

November 24, 2004 Amended and Restated Lease of the Municipal Air Terminals between the 

City of New York and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ('the Lease"), which 

Complainants claim demonstrates that the Port Authority violated Grant Assurance 20, which 

requires an airport sponsor to take appropriate action to prevent the establishment or creation of 

airport avigational hazards. 

Complainants' Motion should be denied for two separate and independent reasons. 

First, Complainants' Motion should be denied because of the utter failure to satisfY the 

requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 (f), which governs such motion to present new evidence or 

issues in an appeal from a Director's Determination. Complainants do not satisfY the 

requirements by explaining why the evidence they now seek to be included in the record and the 

issue they now seek to be included in the appeal were not timely presented to the Director, or 

could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the 

evidentiary record closed. New issues and evidence should not be considered by the Associate 

Administrator at this late date, more than two years after the date of the Director's 

Determination, and almost two years after the Complainant's filed their appeal, in violations of 

the applicable requirements of Part 16. Thus, Complainants' Motion should be denied it its 

entirety and with prejudice on that ground alone. 

4 Hereinafter referred to as "Complainants' Motion." 

3 
Second, Complainants' Motion should be denied because the FAA has issued three 

separate formal Determinations ofNo Hazard to Navigation with respect to the NSMTS, and a 

Part 16 proceeding is not the proper forum for challenging FAA Determinations of No Hazard to 

Navigation. Complainants state that relevance of the evidence they wish to add to the record is 

to establish that the Port Authority violated Grant Assurance 20, which requires an airport 

sponsor to take appropriate action to prevent the establishment or creation of airport avigational 

hazards. Complainants make this claim despite the fact that the FAA has issued three separate 

formal Determinations of No Hazard to Navigation with respect to the NSMTS. Complainants 

are attempting to challenge these determinations of the FAA through this Part 16 proceeding. 

However, a Part 16 proceeding is not the proper forum for challenging Determinations of No 

Hazard to Navigation of the FAA. FAA regulations set forth different procedures for making 

such challenges. Thus, Complainants' Motion should be denied it its entirety and with prejudice 

on this additional ground as well. 

However, in the alternative, should Complainants' Motion be granted, the Port Authority 

moves to supplement the record and amend its Reply to rebut the evidence Complainants now 

seek to be included in the record to address the issue Complainants now seek to be included in 

the appeal. If Complainants are permitted to supplement the record and amend its Appeal at this 

late date in the proceedings, then as a matter of fundamental fairness, the Port Authority should 

be permitted to supplement the record and amend its Reply to malce a rebuttal argument. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Complainants filed their Amended Complaint on Aprill2, 2011, which alleged the Port 

Authority and the City had violated Grant Assurances 19, 20, 21 and 34 for reasons related to the 

construction ofthe NSMTS. Item 1. Complainants included a copy of the November 24, 2004 

4 
Amended and Restated Lease of the Municipal Air Terminals between the City ofNew York and 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as Exhibit 55 to the Amended Complaint. Item 

1, Exhibit 55. 

On May 24, 2011, the Director issued a Partial Dismissal Order and Notice of Docketing 

assigning the Docket Number 16-11-04 to the instant proceeding. The May 24 Order dismissed 

the City from the Part 16 Proceeding based on the February 28, 2011letter. Item 2. The 

dismissal of the City from the proceeding was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit by summary order dated June 12, 2012. Item 11. 

On June 10, 2011, the Port Authority filed its Answer and Motion to Dismiss the 

Amended Complaint. Item 3. On Ju1y 12, 2011, the Complainants filed their Reply to the 

Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Item 6, On Ju1y 29, 2011, the Port Authority filed 

its Rebuttal to Complainants' Reply. Item 9. 

On September 27,2012, the Director issued the Director's Determination finding that the 

Port Authority was not in violation of Grant Assurances 5, 19, 20, 21, and 34, and ordering that 

the Complaint be dismissed. 

On February 4, 2013, Complainants filed their Appeal from the Director's Determination 

with the Associate Administrator. On April 3, 2013, the Port Authority filed its Reply to 

Complainants' Appeal. 

The Associate Administrator has not yet decided the Appeal. By Notice of Extension of 

Time dated December 17,2014, the Associate Administrator gave notice that the date when the 

fmal agency decision wou1d be issued was extended to on or about February 27,2015. 

5 
ARGUMENT 

POINT I 

COMPLAINANTS' MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO 

SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF 14 C.F.R § 16.33 (f). 

Complainants' motion should be denied for failure to satisfY the requirements of 14 

C.F.R. § 16.33 (f) because Complainants do not explain why the evidence they now seek to be 

included in the record and the issue they now seek to be included in the appeal, was not timely 

presented to the Director or could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior 

to the date on which the evidentiary record and the appeal closed. 

Part 16 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("Part 16") sets forth the 

procedures governing proceedings involving Federally-assisted airports. 14 C.F .R. § 16.33 

governs appeals from a Director's Determination. 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 (f) sets forth the 

requirements for presenting new evidence or argument in an appeal which was not presented to 

the Director prior to a Director's Determination. 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 (f) provides as follows: 

(f) Any new issues or evidence presented in an appeal or reply will not be 

considered unless accompanied by a petition and good cause found as to why the 

new issue or evidence was not presented to the Director. Such a petition must: 

(1) Set forth the new matter; 

(2) Contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, 

or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable; and 

(3) Contain a statement explaining why such new issue or evidence could 

not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on 

which the evidentiary record closed. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 (f), Complainant's Motion should be denied because "new 

issues or evidence presented in an appeal or reply will not be considered ... unless good cause 

[is] found as to why the new issue or evidence was not presented to the Director, id (emphasis 

added), and Complainants utterly fail to satisfY the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 16.33 (f). 

6 
Complainants' Motion does not comply with of 14 C.P.R.§ 16.33 (f) because it does not 

explain why the evidence they now seek to be included in the record and the issue they now seek 

to be included in the appeal were not timely presented to the Director, or could not have been 

discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record 

closed. Complainants do not even attempt to satisfy these requirements. 

Complainants' failure to satisfy the requirements of 14 C.P.R. § 16.33 (f), or even 

attempt to do so, is all the more egregious because Complainants make their motion more than 

two years after the date of the Director's Determination, and almost two years after the 

Complainants filed their appeal. Thus, Complainants' Motion should be denied. 

Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that it would be impossible for Complainants to 

establish good cause for having failed to timely present the evidence and argument which is the 

subject of Complainants' Motion pursuant to the requirements of 14 C.P.R. § 16.33 (f) because 

the Amended Complainant included a copy of the Lease as Exhibit 55. Item 1, Exhibit 55. 

Thus, Complainants had every opportunity to timely present the evidence and argument based on 

that document prior to the issuance of the Director's Determination since Complainants had the 

Lease in their possession when they filed the Amended Complaint. 

Accordingly, Complainants' motion should be denied with prejudice for failure to satisfy 

the requirements of 14 C.P.R. § 16.33 (f). 

7 
POINT II 

COMPLAINANTS' MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE 

CLAIMANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM CLAIMING THAT THE NSMTS 

WILL CREATE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION IN THIS PART 16 

PROCEEDING. 

Complainants state that relevance of the evidence they wish to add to the record is to 

establish that the Port Authority violated Grant Assurance 20, which requires an airport sponsor 

to take 

appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is 

required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport 

(including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately 

cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, 

or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by 

preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards. 

Complainants make this claim of relevance despite the fact that the FAA has issued three 

separate formal Determinations of No Hazard to Navigation with respect to the NSMTS. Thus, 

Complainants seek to use the evidence they are seeking to add to the record to attempt to 

challenge these determinations of the FAA through this Part 16 proceeding. However, a Part 16 

proceeding is not the proper forum for challenging Determinations of No Hazard to Navigation 

of the FAA. FAA regulations set forth different procedures for making such challenges. 

On September 18, 2006, the FAA determined that the NSMTS presented no hazard to air 

navigation in Determination Of No Hazard To Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 2004-

AEA-3159-0E. Item 3, Exhibit D. The Determination stated that the NSMTS would not affect 

any plans on file, would not affect a planned precision approach for Runway 13, would not 

interfere with any airport traffic patterns, would not adversely affect any present or future VFR 

or IFR terminal procedure, would not affect any VFR or IFR en route procedure, and would not 

have a cumulative impact on any existing or planned airport. 

8 
On September 19, 2008, the FAA again determined that the NSMTS presented no hazard 

to air navigation in its Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 

2007-AEA-1163-0E. Item 1, Exhibit 22. The Determination stated that the NSMTS would 

have no impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR, 

and that the NSMTS would have no cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction 

or alteration of a structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed 

structures. The Determination described the impact on arrival, departure, and enroute procedures 

for aircraft operating under IFR as follows: 

LaGuardia Airport currently has a plan on file with the FAA to 

install a precision approach to runway 31. During the aeronautical 

study, the FAA and the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey has agreed to install an offset localizer with a 3.1 degree 

glide slope angle which will allow for a decision height of 280 feet 

above touchdown with visibility of 5000 feet. The proposed 

building will not impact this approach procedure. 

Item 1, Exhibit 22. 

The City also submitted a Notice Of Proposed Construction Or Alteration for a 97-foothigh crane container handling gantry to be erected at the NSMTS. On October 24, 2008, the 

FAA determined that the crane container handling gantry would not pose a hazard to air 

navigation in its Determination Of No Hazard To Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 2008-

AEA-407 1 -OE. Item 3, Exhibit 23. 

The FAA concluded that the structure as proposed would not have a substantial adverse 

effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft or the use of any air 

navigation facility, and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Item 3, Exhibit 23. 

The procedures for challenges to FAA determinations of no hazard to air navigation are 

set forth in Subpart D of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 C.P.R. 

§§77.31 et seq., not in Part 16 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. FAA Order 

9 
5190.6B, Airport Compliance Manual (Sept. 30, 2009), specifically states at§ 5.16 (e) that 

airspace matters fall outside of the jurisdiction of Part 16 proceedings. 

14 C.F.R. § 77.35(c) provides that a determination as to whether proposed construction 

would be a hazard to air navigation by the Regional Manager, Air Traffic Division, or his 

designee, is final unless a petition for review of such a determination is granted by the FAA 

Administrator under 14 C.F.R. § 77.37. Such a petition must be brought within 30 days of the 

determination by a person who stated a substantial aeronautical objection to the proposed 

construction, or a person who has a substantial aeronautical objection but was not given an 

opportunity to state it. 14 C.F.R. § 77.37(a). If such a petition is granted, then a final decision is 

granted by the FAA Administrator based upon a report of the Regional Manager, Air Traffic 

Division, briefs and related submissions, or based upon a public hearing. 14 C.F.R. § 77.37 (c). 

The FAA issued three separate determinations that the proposed NSMTS would not be a 

hazard to air navigation pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 77.35. All three determinations that the 

proposed NSMTS would not be a hazard to air navigation pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 77.35 became 

final. Complainants make no claim that they filed even one petition challenging any of the three 

determinations of the FAA regarding the status of the NSMTS as a hazard to air navigation. 

Complainants' attempted use of Part 16 to attack the three determinations of no hazard to 

air navigation regarding the NSMTS is a blatant attempt to circumvent the processes of Subpart 

D of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code ofF ederal Regulations, and the requirement that a challenge 

to such a determination must be made in a petition satisfying the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 

77.37. 

The FAA has clearly stated that a Part 16 proceeding is not the appropriate forum to 

challenge actions or determinations of the FAA. Boca Airport, Inc. v. Boca Raton Airport 

10 
Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-00-10 (Director's Determination, April26, 2001), at 23; Town of 

Fairview v. City of McKinney, FAA Docket No. 16-99-09 (Director's Determination, Jan. 23, 

2001) at 17. 

Accordingly, Complainants' motion should be denied with prejudice because 

Complainants seek to use the evidence they are seeking to add to the record to attempt to 

improperly challenge through this Part 16 proceeding prior Part 77 determinations of the FAA 

that the NSMTS will not constitute a hazard to air navigation. 

POINT III 

THE PORT AUTHORITY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SUPPLEMENT 

THE RECORD AND AMEND ITS REPLY TO MAKE A REBUTTAL IF 

COMPLAINANTS ARE PERMITTED TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD 

AND AMEND ITS APPEAL. 

Complainants' Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth above. However, in the 

alternative, should Complainants' Motion be granted, the Port Authority moves to supplement 

the record and amend its Reply to rebut the evidence Complainants now seek to be included in 

the record to address the issue Complainants now seek to be included in the appeal. If 

Complainants are permitted to supplement the record and amend its Appeal at this late date in the 

proceedings, then as a matter of fundamental fairness, the Port Authority should be permitted to 

supplement the record and amend its Reply to make a rebuttal argument. 

The evidence that the Port Authority seeks to submit is the Declaration of Michael 

Gernant, dated January 23,2015 ("Gernant Declaration"). The Gernant Declaration is rebuttal 

evidence to the evidence and argument that is the subject of Complainants' Motion. 

Complainants' Motion contains statements of counsel that the NSMTS lies within the 

2,500 foot long Runway Protection Zone ("RPZ") ofLGA Runway 31/13 under the definition of 

that RPZ as set forth in Amended and Restated Lease of the Municipal Air Terminals between 

11 
the City of New York and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ("the Lease"). 

However, Complainants do not establish that the Lease defmitions the RPZ ofLGA Runway 

31/13 is determinative of the RPZ for the purposes of maintaining safe operations at LGA under 

current conditions. 

The current RPZ for LGA Runway 31/13 is 1,700 feet as established pursuant to FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13a, Appendix 7, and the current LGA Airport Layout Plan 

("ALP") on-file with, and approved by, the Federal Aviation Administration, the RPZ for LGA 

Runway 31/13 is 1, 700 feet long. As set forth in Gernant Declaration, the NSMTS is outside of 

the 1,700 feet long RPZ for LGA Runway 31/13. 

The Lease definition of a 2500 foot long RPZ for LGA Runway 31/13 was consistent 

with a long term strategy to institute an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to LGA 

Runway 31/13 if and when feasible. See, Item 1, Exhibit 16; Item 1, Exhibit 54. As set forth in 

the Gemant Declaration, LGA Runway 31/13 is not currently equipped with an ILS, and the Port 

Authority has no current plans to equip LGA Runway 31/13 with an ILS because of the inability 

to locate a suitable location for equipment necessary for implementation of an ILS for LGA 

Runway 31/13. Furthermore, there is unrefuted evidence in the record that the FAA has been 

unable to find a suitable location for equipment necessary for implementation of an ILS. Item 3, 

Attachment C, at ~13. 

If Complainants are permitted to supplement the record and amend its Appeal at this late 

date in the proceedings, then as a matter of fundamental fairness, the Port Authority should be 

permitted to supplement the record with the Gemant Declaration and amend its Reply to argue 

that the that the NSMTS does not lie within the Runway Protection Zone ("RPZ") of LGA 

Runway31/13. 

12 
CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Complainants' Motion should be denied in all respects 

with prejudice. In the alternative, if Complainants' Motion is granted, the Motion Of The Port 

Authority Of New York And New Jersey To Supplement Record And Amend Reply should be 

granted. 

Dated: January 28, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff 

Attorney 

Law Department 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

225 Park A venue South, 14th Floor 

New York, N.Y. 10003 

Telephone: (212) 435-3451 

Attorneys for Respondent 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

13 
Exhibit 1 
Kenneth D. Paskar and Friends of LaGuardia Airport, Inc. 

v. 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

FAA Docket No. 16-11-04 

INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

The following documents (Items) constitute the administrative record in this proceeding: 

FAA Exhibit 1: 

Item 1 Aprill2, 2011, Amended Complaint and Request for Investigation Pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. Part 16, Kenneth D. Paskarand Friends of LaGuardia Aimort, Inc., v. The City 

of New York, and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

exhibit I 

exhibit 2 

exhibit 3 

exhibit 4 

exhibit 5 

exhibit 6 

exhibit 7 

exhibit 8 

exhibit 9 

exhibit 10 

exhibit 11 

January 20, 2011, Aimav.comwebsite for La Guardia Airport (LOA), 

http://aimav.com/airportlKLGA 

February 12,2011, Declaration of Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

November 12, 2010, Gibson Dunn Letter to the General Counsel, Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey 

December 14, 20 l 0, Gibson Dunn Letter to New York City Corporation 

Counsel ' 

January 2007, City of New York Department of Sanitation, Engineering Report 

for the North Shore Marine Transfer Station, Part 360 Permit Application 

April201 0, USDA and FAA Draft Study, Evaluation of the North Shore 

Marine Transfer Station and Its Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and 

Safe Air Operations at LOA 

January 28, 2005, FAA Determination of Presumed Hazard 

May 9, 2005, Port Authority ofNY & NJ Letter to FAA regarding aeronautical 

study 

September 18,2006, FAA Determination ofNo Hazard 

October 17, 2006, Petition of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

for Review of Determination of No Hazard 

October 28, 20 I 0, New York Flight Delays Report 
2 

exhibit 12 October 23, 2006, Queens Delegation Letter to the FAA Administrator 

exhibit 13 February 28, 2007, Port Authority of NY & NJ Letter to FAA Airspace & 

Rules Branch 

exhibit 14 March 12, 2007, Email chain from FAA NY ADO, re: transfer station 

exhibit 15 March 26,2007, Email chain from FAA OES, re 07-1163/1169 

exhibit 16 July 2, 2007, Port Authority of NY & NJ Letter to FAA NY Airports District 

Office 

exhibit 17 February 20, 2008, City ofNY Letter to the Executive Director, The Port 

Authority of NY & NJ 

exhibit 18 August 30, 20 I 0, Ferrara Bros. Building Materials Corp., Letter to Mr. Ken 

Paskar 

exhibit 19 December 8, 2010, Williams Aviation Consultants Letter to Ken Paskar 

exhibit 20 May29, 2008, Port Authority of NY & NJ Letter to FAA OES 

exhibit 21 October 10, 2008, Email chain from FAA AEA-620, re: transfer station 

exhibit 22 September 19,2008, FAA Determination of No Hazard 

exhibit 23 October 24, 2008, FAA Determination of No Hazard 

exhibit 24 March 12,2009, Queens Chronicle Article, re: transfer station 

exhibit 25 January 4, 2011 (access date), Bill Summary & Status, H. proposed Arndt. 159 

exhibit 26 Undated, Congressional Record page H5976, re: transfer station 

exhibit 27 June lO, 2009, FAA Letter to NYC Deputy Commissioner Szarpanski 

exhibit 28 July 9, 2009, NYC Letter to FAA 

exhibit 29 February 20 I 0, FAA Evaluation of Trash-Transfer Facilities as Bird 

Attractants 

exhibit 30 May 21, 2010, Ackerman and Crowley letter to FAA Administrator 

exhibit 31 May 21, 2010, NY Assemblywoman Mayersohn Letter to the Executive 

Director, Port Authority of NY & NJ 

·- ---· --····-·--------------------_J 
3 

exhibit 32 May 24, 2010, Air Line Pilots Association Comments 

exhibit 33 May 14,2010, DeFusco comments on Preliminary Assessment and 

Recommendations Regarding Potential Bird Hazards to Aviation from the 

Porposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station, Queens, New York 

exhibit 34 Paskar submittal, re: transfer station 

(I) March 11, 2009, Steven D. Garber, PhD, Submittal 

{2) May 6, 2009, Supplemental Report 

(3) May 14, 2010, DeFusco comments (same as 33 and 45) 

(4) May 24, 2010, Paskar Response to Evaluation of the North Shore Marine 

Transfer Station April 20 I 0 Report 

exhibit 35 September 2, 2010, Technical Panel Report, with transmittal letters 

exhibit 36 September 2, 2010, Letter from the Technical Panel to Secretary LaHood 

exhibit 37 September 2, 2010, FAA Letter to Mr. Harry Szarpanski, NYC 

exhibit 38 September 3, 2010, NYC (Harry Szarpanski) Letter to FAA 

exhibit 39 February 22, 2007, FAA Email chain, re: transfer station 

exhibit 40 Undated, Google Earth Printout of airport runway 

exhibit 41 March 13, 2007, FAA Email chain, re: transfer station 

exhibit 42 October 30, 2010, Cleary Email 

exhibit 43 July 30, 2010, Hughes comment regarding transfer station 

exhibit 44 October 17, 2002, Delaware Environmental Appeals Board, Appe\11 No. 2000-

10, Dover AFB, Final Order and Decision 

exhibit 45 May 14, 2010, DeFusco comments (same as 33 and 34(3)) 

exhibit 46 Undated, Merritt comments regarding transfer station 

exhibit 47 May 26, 2009, Daily News Article, re: transfer station 

exhibit 48 September 20 I 0, Hall & Associates LLC, comments on transfer station 

exhibit 49 September 30, 20 l 0, Moergeli comments on transfer station 

exhibit 50 Undated, Brady comments on transfer station 
exhibit 51 Undated, Williams Aviation Consultants comments on transfer station 

exhibit 51 a Undated, Williams Aviation Consultants comments on transfer station 

exhibit 52 2005, Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport 

Personnel 

exhibit 53 2000, LaGuardia Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment 

exhibit 54 March 23, 2009, Port Authority Email chain 

4 

exhibit 55 November 24, 2004, Amended and Restated Agreement of Lease of the 

Municipal Air Terminals, City of New York and The Port Authority of NY & 

NJ 

Item A May 9, 20 II, Order extending time period to docket or dismiss complaint. 

Item2 

ltem3 

May 24, 20 II, FAA Partial Dismissal Order and Notice of Docketing, FAA Docket 

No. 16-11-04 

Attachment A. 

Attachment B. 

Attachment C. 

Attachment D. 

February 28, 2011, FAA letter to Steven M. Taber, Esq. dismissing 

Complaint without prejudice, FAA Docket No. 16-11-02, with January 

13, 2011, FAA Airport Master Record (Form 50 I 0), LaGuardia Airport 

May 18, 2011, Grant History Report for LaGuardia 

May 5, 2011, FAA Airport Master Record (Form 5010), LaGuardia 

Airport 

March 26,2010 (date of offer), FAA Grant Agreement with the Port 

Authority of NY & NJ 

June 1 0, 20 II, Resoondent' s Answer to Amended Complaint 

Attachment A. 

Attachment B. 

Attachment C. 

Attachment D. 

Exhibit A. 

June 10, 2011, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

June 10,2011, Statement of Facts in Support of Answerto Amended 

Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

June 6, 2011, Declaration ofT om Bock 

June I 0, 20 II, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 

Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

E-mail dated June 6, 2011 to Tom Bock from Kevin Thompson, 

Eastern Flight Procedures Office, FAA and attachment 
Item 4 

Item 5 

ltem6 

Exhibit B. 

Exhibit C. 

Exhibit D. 

Exhibit E. 

Exhibit F. 

5 

Airport Master Record - LaGuardia Airport 

Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1), with 

respect to North Shore Marine Transfer Station ("NSMTS"), received 

by FAA November 10,2004 

Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study 

No. 2004-AEA-3159-0E. (Sept. 18, 2006) 

Complaint in PU$/car v. City of New York and The Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, Docket No. 16-11-02, dated February 12, 

2011 

FAA Letter determination dated February 28, 20 II, dismissing 

Complaint in PU$/car v. City of New York and The Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, Docket No. 16-11-02 

June 21, 2011, Complainants Paskar and FOLA's Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Reply 

June 27,2011, FAA Order Granting Extension of Time 

July 12, 2011, Complainants Paskar and FOLA's Consolidated Reply to Respondent's 

Answer and Motion to Dismiss 

Attachment A. 

Attachment B. 

Attachment C. 

Attachment D. 

Attachment E. 

Attachment F. 

Attachment G. 

Exhibit I 

Exhibit2 

July II, 201 I, Declaration of Kenneth D. Paskar 

July 12, 20I I, Declaration of James Hall 

June 6, 2011, Declaration of Charles Hannon 

July 8, 2011, Declaration of Russell Defusco 

July 6, 20 II, Declaration of Ronald Merritt 

July 7, 2011, Declaration of Michael Matrone 

July 6, 2011, Declaration of Barry Yurtis, with attachments 

May 6, 2009, Stephen Garber, PhD., Supplemental Report to the NYC 

DEC Reference the North Shore Marine Transfer Station, with 

attachments. 

LGA Conical Surfaces. 
Item 7 

ItemS 

Item 9 

6 

July 15,2011, Respondent's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Serve and 

File Rebuttal 

July 21, 2011, FAA Order Granting Extension of Time. 

July 29, 2011, Rebuttal Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion 

of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

Attachment A. July 29, 2011, Declaration of Tom Bock 

Item B 

Item 10 

ltemll 

Item 12 

Itcm13 

Item 14 

Item 15 

Item 16 

January 4, 2012, Letter from Attorney Taber inquiring on issuance of Director's 

Determination. 

January 20,2012, FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination 

June 12, 2012, Summary Order On Petition to Review an Order of the Federal 

Aviation Administration, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

Kenneth D. Paskar; and Friends of LaGuardia Airport, Inc. (Petitioners) v. the Federal 

Aviation Administration; Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration (Respondents). [Case No. 11-2720-ag] 

November 28, 2011, Supreme Court of Queens County Decision, Regarding The 

Matter of the Application of Kenneth Paskar and FRIENDS OF LAGUARDIA 

AIRPORT, INC., Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 against 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, PETER M. 

IW ANOWICZ and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, 

Respondents 

January, 24, 1997, FAA Approved Airport Layout Plan for LaGuardia Airport 

April 25,2012, FAA Notice of Extension ofTime for issuance of Director's 

Determination 

July 16, 2012, FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination 

September 10,2012, FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

KENNETH D. P ASK.AR and FRIENDS OF LAGUARDIA 

AIRPORT, INC., 

Complainants, 

V. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, an 

Interstate Compact agency pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. 

Constitution, 

Respondent. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Docket No. 

16-11-04 

I hereby certify that by Federal Express Overnight delivery service, I have this day served 

copies of the Opposition Of The Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey To 

Complainants' Motion To Supplement Record And Amend Appeal and Motion Of The Port 

Authority Of New York And New Jersey To Supplement Record And Amend Reply of the 

Respondent in the above-captioned matter on the offices or persons set forth below at the 

addresses indicated. 

Dated: January 28, 2015 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff 

Attorney 

Law Department 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

225 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor 

NewYork,N.Y. 10003 

Telephone: (212) 435-3451 

Attorneys for Respondent 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

lhe-tl jJ 1~1%'/f Arnold D. Kolikoff 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

KENNETH D. P ASKAR and FRIENDS OF LAGUARDIA 

AIRPORT, INC., 

Complainants, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,, 

an Interstate Compact agency pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the 

U.S. Constitution, 

Respondent. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( 

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL GERNANT 

I, Michael Gemant, declare as follows: 

Docket No. 

16-11-04 

1. Since April2013, I have held the position of Manager, Technical & Operational 

Support, Aviation Technical Services, Aviation Department, The Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey ("the Port Authority"). In that capacity, my responsibilities include: the 

effective and efficient delivery of essential aviation services for the Port Authority's airports; 

devising technology-based solutions to solve issues confronting the Port Authority airports, such 

as, establishing a multi-airport policy for managing aeronautical obstructions at those airports 

and improving Port Authority design of airfield improvement projects consistent with Federal 

Aviation Administration standards; and serving as the Port Authority's technical expert in the 

fields managed by the unit, such as, airfield lighting, signage and marking, airfield obstruction 

analysis, airport training, advanced airport navigational technologies, and meeting Federal 

Aviation Administration's airfield standard. 

2. I have been asked to determine whether the North Shore Marine Transfer Station 

("NSMTS") lies inside or outside of the Runway Protection Zone ("RPZ") ofLGA 31113. 
3. Pursuant to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13a, Appendix 7, and the current 

LGA Airport Layout Plan ("ALP") on file with, and approved by, the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA"), the RPZ for Runway 31/13 is 1, 700 feet long. 

4. Based on my review of the geographic data, I have concluded that the NSMTS is 

outside of the 1, 700 foot long RPZ of LGA Runway 31/13. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an image 

which superimposes the definition of the 1,700 foot long RPZ ofLGA Runway 31/13 over a 

recent aerial photograph of a portion of LGA and the surrounding area. As set forth in that 

Exhibit, the NSMTS is outlined in red and the RPZ of LGA 31/13 is the trapezoid outlined with 

a solid black line. As is clearly shown in that Exhibit, the NSMTS is outside of the RPZ ofLGA 

31/13 as set forth in the current for LGA. 

5. LGA Runway 31/13 would need a 2,500 foot long RPZ under FAA requirements 

if an Instrument Landing System ("ILS") were to be implemented for that runway. LGA 

Runway 31113 is not currently equipped with an ILS, and the Port Authority has no current plans 

to equip LGA Runway 31/13 with an ILS because of the inability to locate a suitable location for 

equipment necessary for implementation of an ILS for LGA Runway 31/13. Thus, LGA 

Runway 31/13 does not need a 2,500 foot long RPZ under FAA requirements. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed at New York, New York, on January 28,2015. 

Michael Gernant 

2 
Exhibit 1