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 NEW YORK 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 and Appeals 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 and Appcals 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 is tocated in the County and Borough of Queens, within New York City. LGA is eight

miles fronr 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 is small, 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

means that 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 a straight

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 t
7.

C.

9.

8.

Petition ofThe Port Authoritv ofNclv York 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 a temporary 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 is taken from the NPRM and the 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 to thc 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, a carrier needs a rescrvation, commonly knou'n as a "slot."

Slots were initially allocatcd through airline scheduling committees, operating under thenauthorized antitrust immunity, and the airlines would agrce to the allocation. After the

Airline Deregulation Act in 1978, new entrant airlines formed, and the preexisting carriers

sought to expand their operations. This increased competition made it even more dilicult

for airlines to reach agreement, and the 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 replaced the 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 out the HDR at three 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 at tl'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 more than 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. Flights that

arived and departed late at LGA affccted flights a1 other 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 and to 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 of The Port Authority of New York and N€w Jcrscy Page 6

In the NPRM, the FAA declared that 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 hours were not adopted. Since the delays in late 2000 resulted from just

two types ofoperations, the F-AA declared that it is likely that a complete 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 and theory 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 that this was preciscly the situation in 2000, and

LGA cannot accommodate such unreslrained growth.

Thc FAA declared that 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 declared that 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 Monday through 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 to the hourly limit on operations of75

schedulcd operations and 6 "Reservations" for unscheduled opcrations. The OA's would

be allocated in l5-minute increments with specilied arrivals and departures, in order to

minimize congestion from schedule peaking. The FAA stated that 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 size targct

annually because passenger demand fbr access to LGA exceeds the number ofpassengers

being accommodated today, and the airyofi cannot curlcntly, or in the foreseeable future,

accommodate a greater number offlight operations, the airpolt's teminal and other

groundside facilities could accommodate a greater 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 declared that "ln the absence ofthe operational limitations proposed in

this fproposed] order, the FAA anticipates a return ofthe congestion-related delays that the

traveling public experienced in 2000. These delays were not limited to Lacuardia, but

spread to 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 exceeds the number of flights

currently permitted at the airport. Six years ago the 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 is the subject ofthe Determination ("Proposed Structure") is a

facility ofthe Department ofSanitation ofthe City ofNew York ("DSNY"), described in the

Determination and the 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: 110 feet above ground level (AGL)

I 10 feet 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 be declared a hazard to 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 of The Poft Authority of New York and Nerv Jersey Page 10

28. The Determination stated that 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 future VFR 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 Structue would not affect any VFR or IFR cnroute procedure.

The Proposed Structue would 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 That This Petition Should Be Granted.

30. This Petition For Rcview should be granted becausc ofthc failure ofthe Detennination to

corectly and completely address the signilicant impact that the Proposcd Structure would

have on the safe and efllcient utilization ofthe navigable airspace ofLCA.

31 . The Determination incorrectly stated that 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 and
34

Petition ofThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Page 11

would penetratc, or be outside and not penetrate, the 40:1 approach surface for Runway 13.

Calculations ofthc available data can produce results supporting either conclusion.

lnasmuch as this determination affects safe and elficient use ofthe already burdened LGA

aircpace, based on the available location data, the Proposed Structure sbould be treated 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 13 cannot be extended due to 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 13 to 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 LGA flights would cause operators of

aircraft negatively affected by a steeper climb gradient for Runway 13 to 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 of The Port Authority of New York and Ncw Jersey Page I2

is unlikely that an affected 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, and thus 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 a straight 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 aircraft to 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 aircraft to "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 S1a1es and thus is

affectcd by precipitation year round, and snow and ice from late Fall through early Spring.

A reduccd threshold 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 ofNcw York 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, and thc 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 are conducted 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 of The Po Authority of Nerv York and New Jersey Page 14

undesirable congeslion and delay for LGA and the 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 and the

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 thcir activity 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 such constraints, 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 airlines would 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, and thus on the NAS, the Polt Authodty has a long history ofsuccessfully

cooperating with rcal estate devclopers and local comnlunity boards to prevent new

construction whosc height would penetrate the 40t 1 surface for Runway 13.

47.

49.

48.
Petition of The 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 declared that 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 I 59-OE.
Petition ofThe Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey Page 16

WHERIFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the FAA should grant the 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 and Appeals 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 and Appeals 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: