Viewing page 27 of 36

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-26-

However, the principal problem in attempted local regulation has not been by way of noise ordinances adopted under the police power, but purported "lease conditions" imposed by the airport operator as landlord. For example, the Port of New York Authority's well-known "112-PNdb" rule is enforced against carriers operating at the New York airports, under the alleged right of the Port as operator of the airport to control the conditions of its use.
The costs of complying with the New York noise-limit have been estimated by one airline alone at Kennedy International Airport over $4-million a year. Another carrier estimated that its economic penalty in complying with the regulation as equal to 5% of the annual gross operating revenue of each of its affected aircraft operated at Kennedy International.
Until now, the New York airport regulation has been upheld by the courts as not in conflict with any existing Federal certification or regulation. 11/ This appears to be as much the result of omission by FAA to exercise Federal authority as anything else. On the other hand, while it is by no means certain that Federal "noise certification" authority in and 
11/Port of New York Authority v. Eastern Air Lines, et al, E. D. N. Y. (1966), 259 F. Supp. 745. Cf. American Airlines, et al v. Town of Hempstead, supra, note 5, where the Court said of the Port's rules (at pp. 233-4):
"... its rules are expressly subordinate to the FAA rules and do not profess to authorize or direct anything not authorized under the FAA rules, regulations and Tower bulletin".