### Bf,FORE 'THE 

### FEDERAL 

### AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF

### TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. Petition pursuant 

### to

### f4 C.F.R. S77.37 

### for rcview 

### of DETERMINATION OF NO 

### HAZARD TO

### AIR NAVIGATION, AERONAUTlCAL STUDY NO. 2OO4- 

### AEA-3159-OE Manager,Airspace and Rules 

### Division Federal 

### Aviation Administration Room 423 800 

### lndependcnce Avenue, 

### SW Washington, DC 20591



### PETITION OF

### THE PORT 

### AUTHORITY OF 

### NEWYORK AND NEW JERSEY FOR 

### REVIEW OF 

### DETERMINATTON OF NO 

### HAZARD TO

### AIR NAVIGATION,

AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO. 2O04-AEA-3159-OE

Communications 

### with rcspect to this document should be addrcssed to: 

### Mr. Tom

# Bock Carlene 

### V. Mclntyre, Esq. Ceneral Manager 

### for Airspace 

## Modemization, Chicf, Opinions andAppeals 

### Division Technology

### & Operational 

# Enhancement Telcphonc and 

### e-mail: (212) 435-3503; 

### cmcintyr@panynj.gov 

### Aviation Departmcnt The Port

### Authority 

### ofNew York and 

### New

## Jcrsey Arnold D. 

### Kolikoff, Esq. 225 Park 

### Avcnue South, 9th

# Floor Assistant 

### Chief, Opinions andAppcals 

### Division New York, New

## York

# 10003 Telcphone and 

### e-mail: (212) 435-34511. 

### akolikof@panynj.gov Law Department The Port

### Authority 

### ofNew York and New Jersey 225 Park Avenue South, 

### l3th F'loor 

### New York, 

### Ncw

### York 10003 

### Facsimile: (212) 435-3546 

### October 17, 2006

### BEFORE 

### THE FEDERAL 

### AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF

### TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### Petition pursuant to

### f4 C.F.R. $77.37 

### for revierv

### of DETERMINATION OF NO 

### HAZARD TO

### AIR NAVIGATION, AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO. 2OO4- 

### AEA-3159-OE Manager,Airspace and Rules 

### Division Federal 

### AYiation 

### Administration Room 423 800 

### Independence Avenue, SW 

### Washington, DC 20591



### PETTTION OF

### THE PORT

### AUTHORITY OF 

### NEW 

### YORK AND NEW JERSEY FOR 

### REVIEW OF 

### DETERMINATION OF 

### NO 

### HAZARD TO

### AIR NAVIGATION,

AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO. 2OO4-AEA-3I59-OE
For its 

### Petition for Review Of 

### Detemination Of 

### No Hazard To

### Air Navigation, Aeronautical study No. 2004-AEA-3159-OE ("the Delermination"), The Port

### Authodty 

### OfNew York And 

### New Jersey 

### ("the Poft 

### Authority"), states as

### follows: 

## A. Introduction 

# L The Port

### Authority operates the three 

### commercial Metropolitan New 

### YorkNerv Jersey airports, LaGuardia 

### Airyort 

### ("LGA"), John F. Kennedy 

### lnternational

### Aitpon ("JFK") and 

### Newark 

### Libefiy Intemational 

### Airyoft ("EWR'). 

# 2. The 

### Determination concems a proposed structure 

### within the Runway Protection Zone

## of Runway 13/31 

### ("Runway 13" or 

### "Runway 

### 31"r).

I

### the latter designation is used in rcference to 

### arrival operations.

### Petition 

### ofThc Port

### Authority ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jerscy 

### Iage 2



## B. Lacuardia 

### Airport 

# 3. LGA istocated in the County and Borough 

### of Queens,

### within New

### York 

### City. LGA is

### eight milesfronr 

### Midtown Manhaltan. Geographic refercnce 

### points are

### 40" 

### 46'36.2" nodh,'73' 52'23.7" west. 

### LGA is 12.7 l'eet above sea level. 

# 4. LGA issmall, consisting 

### of680 acres and 72 

### aircraft gates. LaGuardia is surrounded 

### by Bowery and 

### Flushing bays on one side, and a

### major arterial 

### highway, and dense residential neighborhoods on the 

### other. LGA's two 7,000-foot runways, 

### Runway 13/31 and 

### Runway 4/22 

### ("Runway 

### 4" or 

### "Runway 

### 22") arc perpendicular and intersect one another, 

### which
meansthat

### ariving and departing 

### flights must be

### carefully timed and synchronized. 

### According to 

### LGA Collection and

### Analysis 

### of1'erminal Records 

### (CATER) data 

### for September 1,2005,through 

### August 31, 2006, 48 percent

### ofaircraft departing 

### from LGA use 

### Runway 13. 

# 5. Arriving aircrall that use the 

### Visual Approach Slopc 

### Indicator 

### ("VASI") visual indicator system to make on a 

### right base leg approach to 

### Runway 31 do not always 

### fly astraight 

### Localizer or ILS approach to Runway 

## 3l becausc 

### ofthe short crossing mnways at 

### LaGuardia. 

### LGA air

### traffic control consistently provides last minute turns 

### for spacing, thus causing 

### aircraff to 

### movc away

### from the 

### runway centcrlinc. 

# 6. Notwithslanding its 

### physical and operational 

### limitations, 

### LGA is 

### intensively utilized, as demonstrated by the

### following statistics: Plane Movements Passengers 

### Air Cargo (tons) 

### Air Mail

(tons) 2005 404,853 25,878,601 16,006 10,296 2004 398,957 24,435,619 14,096 15.219 2003 374,952 22,482;170 

## t2.t3l 18.981 

### 2002 362,649 21,986,679 

### l1-709 23.818 2001 36',7 ,811 22,519,87 4 16-47 4 43 -77

### t7.



### C.

9. 8. 

### Petition 

### ofThe Port Authoritv 

### ofNclvYork and 

### New.Iersev Pagc 3
In 

### recognition 

### ofthe effects 

### ofreducing the 

### utility ofthe runways at 

### LGA on congestion and delay at 

### LGA, 

### fie Pod 

### Authority has cooperated 

### with real estate developers and 

### local community boards 

### to prevent new construction to be designed to penetratc the 40:1 surface. The Port

### Autho ty has a long 

### history ofsuccess in these

### efforts. Two recent and notable examples are the successful efforts 

### with regard to the redevelopment 

### ofthe historic 

### RKo Keith movie theater 

### in Flushing in 2005, and

### with regard to the redevelopment 

### ofthe Flushing 

### Municipal Parking 

### Lot in 2006. 

### FAA Recognition 

### OfThe Congestion 

### And Delays 

### At LGA And 

### Their E{fect On 

### The National 

### Air System The 

### history ofcongestion aDd delays at 

### LGA, and

### their effect on the 

### National

### Air System 

### ("NAS"). has been recognized 

### in strong language and 

### by strong action 

### ofthe Fcdcral 

### Aviation Administration 

### ("FAA") for decadcs, as set

### forth in the 

### FAA's Notice ofProposed Rulemaking 

### ("NPRM") to establish rules

### for hourly limitations on operations at 

### LGA. T

### l FR 51360 (August 29, 2006).'? As 

### carly as 1969, the FAA. addrcsscd thc congestion and delay at 

### LGA by adopting a

### lligh Density 

### Traffic Airyorls Rule 

### ("IIDR") at 

### LGA, which is

### codified $nder

### l4 CFR Pal1 93, Subpart

## K. The 

### llDR took eflect 

### in 1969 as atemporary rule. but siDce 

### it was 

### effective 

### in reducing congestion and dclays, 

### it became permanent 

### in 1973. The 

### HDR established

### limits

! The

### following description 

### ofcongestion and delays at 

### LGA and its consequences 

### for the 

### NAS and 

### FAA action in response istaken

### from the 

### NPRM andthe 

### Noticc of Proposed Order, 71 FR 54331 (Sept. 14, 2006), seeking comments on temporary 

### reslrictions on operalions at LGA. pcnding issuance 

### ofa Final Rule pursuant tothc 

### NPRM.10.

11.

12. 

### Pctition

### ofThe Port

### Authority ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 4

on the number 

### oftake-offs and landings 

### during certain 

### hours. In order to operate during the restdcted hourc, acarrier needs arescrvation, 

### commonly knou'n as a

### "slot." Slotswere 

### initially allocatcd through 

### airline scheduling committees, operating under thenauthorized 

### antitrust immunity, andthe airlines 

### would agrceto the

### allocation. After the 

### Airline Deregulation 

### Act in 1978, new entrant 

### airlinesformed, and the 

### preexisting carriers sought to expand

### theiroperations. This increased 

### competition made 

### it even more

## dilicult for airlines to reach agreement, andthe scheduling committces began 

### to deadlock. 

### In 1985,

a 

### new 14 CFR Part 93, Subpart S, allocation procedures 

### for slots, 

### including Use-or-Lose 

### provisions and permission to buy and sell slots in a secondary market, were 

### adopted. These procedures replacedthe scheduling commiltees. On

## Ap l 5, 2000, Congrcss enacted the 

### Wendell H. Ford

### Aviation lnyestment and 

### Reform 

### Act 

### ofthe 21st Century 

### ("AIR-21"). AIR-21 phascd outthe 

### HDR atthree covered 

### airpots. with thc

### t,GA

### tlDR scheduled to

### tenninatc on January 

### 1,2007. In addition,

### AIR 21 directed the Department 

### ofTranspoftation 

### ("DOT") to grant exemptions fbr 

### cctain flights from the 

### HDR'S operational 

### limits at 

### LGA prior to the 

### HDR'S

### temination attl'Et 

### airport. Specifically, 

## AIR 21 authorized exemptions 

### for flights operated by new entrant carricrs 

### or certain 

### flights that

### would serve 

### Small-Hub and 

### Non-Hub 

### Airyorts provided the 

### aircraft used had fewer than 71 seats. As a result 

### ofthe AIR-21 legislation, DOT approved morethan 600 exemption requcsts 

### for flights at 

### LGA. By Fall 2000, air

### cariers had added over 300 new scheduled 

### flights at 

### LGA, with plans 

### to operate more 

### in the succeeding 

### months.With no new 

### airport inftastructure or air

### traffic control procedures 

### in placc, 

### overall airpoft capacity remained the

same 

### while the number 

### ofaircraff operations and delays 

### soared.The average minutes

## of

### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authority ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 5

delay 

### for 

### all arriving 

### flights at 

### LGA increased 144 per 

### cent: From 15.52 minutes in 

### March 2000 (the month before

### AIR 21 was enacted) to 37.86 minutes 

### in Septernber 2000. 'l'he incrcase 

### in delay as a result

## ofAIR-2l was not 

### limited to delays at 

### LGA. Flightsthat 

### arived and departed late at 

### LGA affccted 

### flights a1other

### airyofis and in adjacent airspace as 

### well, and 

### by September 2000,

### flight delays at 

### LGA accounted 

### for 25 percent

### ofthe nation's deb1s. compared 

### to I0 perccnl lor the pre\ ious )ear. 

### ln response to these

### conditions. the 

### FA,{ published a

### Notice 

### of Intent 

### in the Federal Rcgister
on 

### November 15, 2000, announcing its 

### intention to

### temporarily cap

### AIR-21 slot exemptions at 

### LGA andto allocate those exemptions by use 

### of a

### lottery. 65 

### FR 69126 

### (Nov. 15, 2000). The Dumbcr of

### Air-21 slot exemptions distributed by thc 

### lottcry was based on an imposed 

### airfield and airspace capacity managerncnt

### limit of75 scheduled operations per hour, plus 6 unscheduled operations 

### (primaiily used by the general 

### aviation community), imposed by the 

### FAA effective January

### 31,2001. 65 FR 75765

### (Dcc.4.2000). This 

### limit allowed a 

### signiiicant increase 

### in opemtions at 

### LGA above the 

### regulatory 

### limits 

### ofthe HDR, thus serving Congressional objectives 

### "while stretching 

### ILGA's] capacity to its 

### practical 

### limits." The

### time 

### limit ofthe December 4, 2000, 

### numerical 

### limits on

### AIR 21 slot exemplions and the 

### lottery allocation proccdures have been extended several times to 

### allow the 

### FAA to 

### explorc other options 

### to control delay at 

### LGA. In anticipation 

### ofthe complete phase-out 

### ofthe HDR at 

### LGA on January 1,2007, as required by

### AIR-21, the 

### FAA has issued a

### Notice 

### of Proposed 

### Rulemaking 

### ('NPRM") to establish rules 

### for hourly limitations on operations at 

### LGA. 71 

### FR51360(Augusr29, 2006). 

### I3.

14.

15.16.

17. 

### Petition ofThe 

### Port

### Authority of New

### York and N€w

### Jcrscy Page 6


### In the 

### NPRM, the 

### FAA declaredthat 

### it would not let the 

### HDR expire and let evenls run

### their
course 

### without 

### FAA intervention because such an approach 

### would permit each

### individual airline to managc (and 

### potentially increase) its 

### own

### flights. The 

### FAA determined that congestion and dclays at 

### LGA could not be adequately managed by use

### ofair traffic control procedures and

### traffic managemelt initiatives suoh as ground delay programs, 

### miles-in-trail restrictions, and

### aircraff 

### rc-routing. Rather. the congestion and delays expedenced in the 

### wakc

## ofAlR 2l flight additions 

### would 

### likely requr 

### iflimitations on

### tolal hourly operations at 

### I-GA during peak hourswere not 

### adopted. Since the delays 

### in late 2000 resulted from

### just two types 

### ofoperations, the F-AA declaredthat 

### it is

### likely that acomplete 

### expiration 

### ofthe HDR would lead to even greater delays abscnt a 

### regulation designed to avert 

### precipitous 

### groMh in operations. Thc 

### NPRM stated that because the cost

### ofdelays at 

### LGA is not

### fully intemalized by any 

### individual carrier, 

### both cxperience andtheory suggest that

### without any constrainl, each 

### canier would. at least 

### initially, continue adding 

### flights despitc an unacccptable level 

### of congestion and 

### delay. The FA.A observed thatthis was 

### preciscly the 

### situation in 2000, and 

### LGA cannot accommodate such unreslrained 

### growth. Thc 

### FAA declaredthat 

### it could not 

### permit unreslrained 

### growth at 

### LGA because delays at 

### LGA have a

### signillcant detrimcntal impact on thc rcst

### ofthe NAS; LGA delays cause 

### nationwide delay and 

### inefficiency. The 

### FAA determined that some regulatory action 10 

### limit congestion at 

### LGA is necessary because 

### LGA cannot 

### realistically expand its 

### runway infrastructure because 

### it borders on 

### Bowery Bay and 

### Flushing Bay, and air 1ralfic managcmcnt improvements such as aimpacc rcdesign 

### or changes

### to scparation standards 

### would, at best, 

### permit minimal capacity incrcases at 

### most. The 

### FAA declaredthat even

# if 18.

### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authoriry ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 7

19. these

### cfficiencies can be reaiized, operating constraints 

### still would 

### likely be nccded at 

### LGA because

### ofits physical limitations, including runway and

### taxiway constraints. By the 

### NPRM, thc 

### FAA proposes to cap 

### hourly operations at

### LGA. Under the proposed rule, the 

### FAA would 

### limit the number 

### ofscheduled 

### flight anivals and dcpartures a1

### LGA during 

### Mondaythrough Friday 

### frorn 6:30

### A.M. to 9159 

### P.M. and Sunday 

### from Noon 

### to 9:59 

### P.M. Similar 

### limits would be placed on unscheduled 

### anivals and dcpartures. 

### excluding helicopters, conducted under instrument 

### flight rules 

### ("lFR''). The 

### FAA would create 

### "Operating

### Autho zalions" (or 

### "OA's") according tothe 

### hourly 

### limit on operations

### of75 schedulcd operations and 6 

### "Reservations" for unscheduled 

### opcrations. The 

### OA's would beallocated 

### in l5-minute increments

### with specilied arrivals and departures, in order to 

### minimize congestion 

### from schedule 

### peaking. The 

### FAA statedthat the 

### relationship

### of schedule peaks and delays at 

### LGA is 

### particularly significant since the current demand approaches 

### LGA's capacity 

### undcl optimal weather conditions. Under olher 

### provisions 

### ofthe FAA proposal. to encourage 

### efficient use 

### ofscarce airspace, holders 

### of 

### OA's would be required to meet an

### airport-wide average aircral't sizetargct 

### annually because passenger demand 

### fbr access 

### to 

### LGA exceeds the number ofpassengers being accommodated today, andthe 

### airyofi cannot

### curlcntly, or 

### in the foreseeable 

### future, accommodate a greater number 

### offlight operations, the 

### airpolt's 

### teminal and other groundside 

### facilities could accommodate agreater number ofpassengers on the 

### existing mrmber

### offlights. 20.



### 21. The problems 

### ofcongestion and delay at 

### LGA, and its consequences 

### for the 

### NAS, are so serious that the 

### FAA issued a

### Notice ofProposed Order 

### ('NPO"). 71 

### FR 54331 (Scpt. 14,

### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authority of New 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 8

2006),

### to implement temporary restrictions on operations at 

### LGA pending issuance

### ofa Final Rule pursuant to the 

### NPRM. 

### 22. In th€NPO, the 

### FAA declaredthat

### "ln the absence

### ofthe operational 

### limitations proposed 

### in this fproposed] order, the 

### FAA anticipates a return 

### ofthe congestion-related delays thatthe 

### traveling public experienced in

### 2000. These delays were not 

### limitedto Lacuardia, but spreadto other airports throughout the 

### National Airspace System 

### (NAS)."

## 7l FR 54331 (Sept. 14, 2006). 

### 23. Futhermore, the 

### FAA stated, 

### An order that 

### temporarily maintains 

### Lacuardia's curent operational 

### limits during the 

### inteNal between the 

### High Density Rule's expiration and the 

### effective date

## of the proposed replacement rule appears necessary, because [the 

### FAA] needfs]

### to avoid any increase in the number 

### of operations or

### flights at 

### Lacuardia. Based 

### on past experience, the 

### FAA expects that the

### temination 

### ofthe slot rules at LaGuardia 

### will lead to a

### significant increase in

### flights, seriously worsening delays at 

### Lacuardia and elsewhere in the

### NAS. The 

### FAA believes that 

### airline demand 

### for flights into and out 

### of 

### Lacuardia substantially exceedsthe number

### offlights currently permitted atthe

### airport. Six years agothe statutory change that required the 

### [DOT] to grant

### all slot exemption applications 

### for specified types

### ofservice created an unacceptable 

### level 

### ofdelay at 

### Lacuardia even though established 

### caniers could not obtain slot exemptions 

### for service 

### to larger communities or

### for flights operated 

### with larger 

### aircraft. 71 FR 54332 (Sept. 14, 2006).

### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authoriry ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 9



## D. The Proposed 

### Structure Addressed 

### By Determination Of No 

### Hazard To

### Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 

### 2004-AEA-3159-OE 

### 24. The proposed structure that isthe subject

### ofthe Determination ("Proposed 

### Structure") is a 

### facility 

### ofthe Department 

### ofSanitation 

### ofthe City

### ofNew York 

### ("DSNY"), described in the 

### Determination andthe related 

### Notice OfProposed Construction Or

### Alteration, Form 7460-1,

as

### follows: 

## Structure: Building, Marine Transfer Station 

# Location: North of 31st Avenue and West

### of 122nd Street, in Flushing, 

### New 

### York,

in the Borough and Corurty 

### ofQueens 

### within the

### City

### ofNew York. The 

### structue

### will be 1.06 nautical 

### miles east

### ofLGA reference 

### point; 2206 feet 

### from the approach end

### ofRunway 13 

# Latitude: 40-46-15.35 

### N 

### NAD 83 

### Longitude:'73-50-57.49W 

# Heights: 110feet above ground 

### level 

### (AGL)

I 10feet above mean sea 

### level 

### (AMSL) 

## E. The Determination Of No 

### Hazard To

### Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 200,1- 

### AEA-3159-OE 

### 25. The 

### Detemination was issued in response

### to a

### Notice OfProposed Construction 

### Or Alteration, Form 7460-1, entered and received on 

### November 10, 2004. 

### 26. The Port

### Authority submitted to the 

### FAA written comments objecting to the Proposed 

### Stucture and requesting that the Proposed Structure bedeclared a hazardto 

### air navigation, 

### by letter dated 

### May 9, 2005. 

### 27. The 

### Determination is dated September 18, 2006, and states that 

### it is subject to 

### review 

### if a 

### petition seeking 

### review is received by the 

### FAA on or before 

### October 18,2006.

### Petition ofThe 

### Poft

### Authority of New 

### York and Nerv 

### Jersey Page 10



### 28. The 

### Determination statedthat the Proposed Structure exceeded the standard set

### forth in the 14 CFR Section 77.23(aX5) by penetrating the 

### Transitional Surface 

### for Runway 13 as set 

### forth 

### in 14 CFR Section 77.25(e): 

### specifically by cxceeding the 

### lransitional Surface 

### by 62 Feet. 

### 29. The 

### Dctcrmination further stated thal: The Proposed Structure 

### would not affect any plans on

### file. The Proposed Structure 

### would not affcct a planned precision approach 

### lor Runway 13. The Proposed Structure 

### would not interferc 

### with any 

### airyort 

### lraffic pattems. 

### Thc Proposcd Structure 

### would not adversely

### affect any present or

### futureVFR or 

### IFR terminal procedure. The Proposed Structure is located

### within thc Runway Protection Zone 

### for Runway 13, although outside 

### ofthe 40:1 obstacle 

### idenlification surface therefor. The Proposed 

### Structuewould not affect any 

### VFR or IFR cnroute procedure. The Proposed 

### Structuewould not have a

### cumulative impact on any existing or planned 

### airporl. The structure 

### would exceed obstruction standards and shall bc obstruction 

### lighted 

### in accordance 

### with the 

### FAA AC 7017460-1K, Chapters 4, 5 and 12. 

## F. The Reasons

### ThatThis Petition Should Be

### Granted. 

### 30. This Petition For 

### Rcview should be granted becausc 

### ofthc failure 

### ofthe Detennination to 

### corectly and 

### completely addressthe 

### signilicant impact that the Proposcd Structure 

### would have on the safe and 

### efllcient utilization

### ofthe navigable airspace 

### ofLCA.
31

## . The 

### Determination incorrectly statedthat the Proposed Structure 

### would not be

### within and 

### would not pcnetrate the 

### 40:1 approach surface 

### for Runway 

### 13. Because the Proposed Structure is located so close to the end

### of Rru'lway 13,the 

### location information provided is 

### insufficiently detailed to determine 

### for ce(ain whether the Proposed 

### Structwe is

### within and34



### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authority of New 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 11 

### would penetratc, or beoutside and not penetrate, the 40:1 approach surface 

### for Runway 13. Calculations 

### ofthc available data can produce results supporting either conclusion. lnasmuch asthis determination affects safe and

### elficient use

### ofthe already burdened 

### LGA aircpace, based on the available 

### location data, the Proposed Structure sbould betreated as

# if it

### will be

### within and

### will penetrate the 40 |

### I approach surface 

### for Runway 13. 

### 32. 'fhc Determination failed to addrcss the effect 

### ofthe Proposcd Structure on the ovcrburdened airspace 

### of LGA. 

### 33. The Proposed Structurc 

### will bc in the Runway Protection Zone

### ofRunway 13. As a result, the landing and

### depa(ing threshold 

### of Runway 13

### would be reduced 

### ifthe Proposed Structure were erected. As recognized by the 

### FAA, Runway 13cannot be extended dueto the physical and geographical 

### limitations of 

### LGA. The 

### FAA has already determincd that the 

### Pofi 

### Aurhority cannot 

### realistically cxpand 

### I"GA's runway infiaslructure because 

### it borders on 

### Bowery Bay and 

### Flushing Bay. Reduction 

### ofthe landing and

### depafiing threshold 

### ofRunway 13

### would have the eff'ect

## of causing certain a;rcraft to use 

### ofRunway 4/22 

### only. The presence 

### ofthc Proposed Stmcture 

### would require 

### aircraff using 

### Runway 13to use a steeper 

### climb gradient than

### curently rcquired; more 

### specifically, the 

### climb gradient 

### would increase 

### from 390 feet per nautical 

### mile to 405 feet per nautical 

### mile. The 

### high demand by 

### airlines and air passengers

### for 

### LGAflights would cause operators 

### of aircraft negatively affected by a steeper 

### climb gradient 

### for Runway 13to use Runway 4/22, rather than take measures to rcduce 

### weight to be ablc to use a reduced threshold 

### Runway 13. Based on

### thc history

### ofairline behavior at 

### LGA as documented 

### by the 

### FAA in the 

### NPRM, 

### it 35.



### 36.

37.

### Petition ofThe 

### Port

### Authority of New

### York and Ncw Jersey Page 

### I2

is 

### unlikely that anaffected 

### airline would 

### volunlarily take the alternative action 

### ofreducing passenger capacity and

### weight to be able 

### lo use Runrvay 

### 13. Each non-standard depadure reduces the 

### airport's operational capacity 

### by a

### minimum 

### ofthree operations per hour. Furthermore, 

### additional effects on use

### ofthe LGA navigablc airspace, andthus on the 

### NAS would result 

### from cffects 

### ofariving aircraft that are

### trying to

### fly the

### VASI system on a

### right base leg 1l] Runway 31, since 

### aircraft do not always 

### lly astraight 

### Localizer or 

### ILS approach 

### to Runway 31 because 

### ofthe short crossing runways at 

### LaGuardia. 

### LGA air

### traffic conlrol consistently provides last minute turns 

### for spacing. thus causing 

### aircraft to move away

### from the runway 

### centerline. The Proposed Structurc 

### would cause some 

### aircraftto avoid use

### of Runway 

## 3l and/or make 

### multiple approaches under those 

### conditiolls. This phenomenon 

### wor d be exacerbated by the need

### for use 

### ofsteeper approach angles to avoid the Proposed Structure, 

### which would reduce the distancc 

### for aircraftto 

### "flare" for rear landing gear

### initial impact. 

### 'fhe Takeof'fDistance Available for departures 

### for Runway 13

### would be reduced even 

### further in

### wct and 

### icy weather. 

### LGA is located in the Nodheast 

### United S1a1esandthus is affectcd by 

### precipitation year round, and snow and ice 

### from late Fall through early Spring. 

### A reduccdthreshold 

### lbr 

### arivals and depadures 

### would have greater cffects on thc

### following larger 

### aircralt in use at

### LGA: Boeing 767, Boeing 757, 

### Boeing 737-800. Based on June 2006, 

### CATER data, 

### collectively, these

### aircraft 

### comp se 12 per ccnt 

### of Runway 13 

### depadures. Thus. the presence 

### ofthe Proposed Structure 

### would interfere 

### with the stated goal

### ofthe NPRM to incrcase passenger 

### utilization 

### ofLGA by increasing use

### oflarger aircraff at 

### LGA and deoreasing use 

### ofsmallcr aircraft at 

### LGA. 39.

40.41.



### Petition 

### ofThe Poft 

### Authority ofNcwYork and New 

### Jersey Pagc 13 

### Eliminating use 

### ofRunway 13

### lbr any number 

### ofaircraft would havo adverse elfects on the 

### efficient 

### utilization of 

### LGA airspace. Apprcximately 48 per cent 

### ofdeparting aircraft use 

### Runway 

### 13. Increasing the 

### climb gradient 

### ofRunway 13

### would result 

### in greater congestion and delay 

### for arrivals and departures on Runway 4/22, and 

### LGA as a

### wholc. As acknowledged by

### thc 

### FAA, increased congestion and delay at 

### LGA would have a 

### signilicant detrimental impact on the rest

### ol the 

### NAS leading to 

### nationwide delay and 

### inelficiency. In recognition

### ofthe extraordinary dclay and congestion 

### conditions at 

### LGA, andthc cffects 

### ofthat congestion on the 

### NAS, thc 

### FAA has 

### found 

### it necessary to take the 

### extraordinary
mcasurcs 

### of adopting the 

### HDR and

### Air-21 slot exemption 

### lottery, and issuing the 

### NPRM and 

### NPO 

### lbr adoption 

### of

### Air-21 slot exemption 

### lottcry permanent and 

### interim replacements 

### for the 

### HDR in the face 

### ofthe Congressional repeal

### ofthe HDR rulc. The number 

### ofoperations during peak hours at 

### LGA, comprising the great 

### majority 

### ofhours in which operations areconducted at 

### LGA, under thc

### curent combined 

### HDR and

### Air-21 slot exemption 

### lottery is 75 schcduled operations and 6 unscheduled operations per hour, 

### which in the words 

### ofthe FAA, servcs Congressional objectives 

### "while stretching 

### [LGA's] capacity 

### to its 

### practical 

### limits." The 

### NPRM and 

### NPO, 

### ifadopted,would not increase the 75 scheduled operations and 6 unscheduled operations per hour peak hour 

### limits, in 

### recognition 

### ofthe limited capacity 

### ofLGA. The 

### cunent and proposed 

### limitations 

### of75 scheduled operations and 6 unscheduled operations 

### pcl hour 

### during peak hours are intended to 

### provide 

### firll utilization 

### ofLGA's prcscnt capacity, 

### including runway thresholds and 

### climb gradients,

### without resulting 

### in 42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

### Pctition ofThe

# Po Authority of Nerv

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 14

undesirable congeslion and delay 

### for 

### LGA andthe

### NAS. An increase in the 

### climb gradient 

### for departing 

### aircralt on 

### Runway 13,

### from 390 feet per nautical 

### mile to 405 feet per nautical 

### mile, would have the effect 

### ofdivefting some

### traflic from Runway 13

### to Runway 4/22, thereby overburdening Runway 4/22 and causing congestion and delay at 

### LGA andthe 

### NAS. As the 

### FAA has alrcady acknowledged 

### in the 

### NPRM and NPO, based on recent 

### history, 

### it is 

### likely, absent the 

### deploymcnt ofcongestion management measures when the 

### IIDR expires, that

### &e airlines

### will seek 

### to increasc 

### thciractivity at 

### LGA, not decrease such 

### activity. 

### Similarly. it is 

### likely that in responsc to operational constraints caused by the Proposcd Structure thc 

### airlines

### will 

## lql adopt either the alternative 

### ofelimination 

### offlights by 

### aircraft affected 

### by suchconstraints, or the alternative 

### ofreducing passenger loads and

### weight to 

### utilize Runway 13 

### in order to 

### comply 

### with such operational 

### constraints. Rather, 

### it is

### likely that

### &e airlineswould maintain such

### flights in

### their current 

### configurations and usc, and overburden, Runway 4/22. Reduction 

### oflhe threshold 

### ofRunway 13

### would also have a negative effect on an 

### implementation 

### ofthe NPRM proposal to

### dist bute operations

### throughout each hour as a result 

### of uneven 

### distribution of availability of Rturways

### \3 and 4/22. II1 

### recognition 

### ofthe ellects 

### ofreducing the 

### utility ofthe runways at 

### LGA on congestion and dclay at 

### LGA, andthus onthe 

### NAS, the 

### Polt 

### Authodty has a

### long history

### ofsuccessfully cooperating 

### with rcal estate devclopers and 

### local comnlunity boards to prevent new 

### constructionwhosc height 

### would penetrate the 40t 1surface 

### for Runway 13. 47.

49. 48.

### Petition ofThe 

### Port

### Authority of 

### New

### York and 

### New Jersey Page 15



### 50, The 

### FAA has recognized that air

### traffic malagement improvements such as

### ai$pace rcdesign or changes

### to sepamtion standards 

### would at best 

### permit rninimal capacity increases at 

### most, The 

### FAA declaredthat even 

### ifthese efficiencies can be realized, operating cobstraints 

### likely still

### will be needed at 

### LGA because

### ofits physical 

### limitations, including runway and

### taxiway constraints. 

### G. Conclusion 

### 51. The 

### FAA should 

### gant the

### within petition for review of the 

### Determination Of 

### No Hazard 

### To 

### Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study 

### No. 2004-AEA-3 I59-OE.

### Petition 

### ofThe Port

### Authority ofNew 

### York and New 

### Jersey Page 16



### WHERIFORE, for the 

### foregoing reasons, the 

### FAA should grantthe

### within petition 

### for review 

### ofthe Detemination 

### OfNo Hazard To

### Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study 

### No. 2004- 

### AEA-3159-OE. Dated: 

### New York, Nelv 

### York October 17- 2006



### Respectfully submitted,



### Mr. Tom

# Bock Carlene 

### V. Mclntl're, Esq. General Manager 

### for Airspace 

## Modemization, Chief, Opinions andAppeals 

### Division Technology 

### & Operational 

# Enhancement Telephone and

### e-mail: (212) 435-3503; 

### Aviation

# Department cmcintyr@panynj gov The Port

### Autho ty

### ofNew York and 

### New

## Jersey Amold D. 

### Kolikofl Esq. 225 Park Avenue South, 9th

# Floor Assistant 

### Chief, Opinions andAppeals 

### Division New York, New

## York

# 10003 Telephone and

### e-mail: (212) 435-3451; akolikof@panynj.gov Law Department The Port

### Authority 

### ofNew York and 

### New Jersey 225 Park Avenue South, 13th 

### Floor New York, New

### York 10003 

### Facsimile: (212) 435-3546



### Amold D. 

### Kolikoff By: