14 C.F.R. § 157.7

FAA determinations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study of an airport proposal and, after consultations with interested persons, as appropriate, issue a determination to the proponent and advise those concerned of the FAA determination. The FAA will consider matters such as the effects the proposed action would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboring airports; the effects the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA; and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. While determinations consider the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground, the determinations are only advisory. Except for an objectionable determination, each determination will contain a determination-void date to facilitate efficient planning of the use of the navigable airspace. A determination does not relieve the proponent of responsibility for compliance with any local law, ordinance or regulation, or state or other Federal regulation. Aeronautical studies and determinations will not consider environmental or land use compatibility impacts.

(b) An airport determination issued under this part will be one of the following:

(1) No objection.

(2) Conditional. A conditional determination will identify the objectionable aspects of a project or action and specify the conditions which must be met and sustained to preclude an objectionable determination.

(3) Objectionable. An objectionable determination will specify the FAA's reasons for issuing such a determination.

(c) Determination void date. All work or action for which notice is required by this sub-part must be completed by the determination void date. Unless otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, an FAA determination becomes invalid on the day specified as the determination void date. Interested persons may, at least 15 days in advance of the determination void date, petition the FAA official who issued the determination to:

(1) Revise the determination based on new facts that change the basis on which it was made; or

(2) Extend the determination void date. Determinations will be furnished to the proponent, aviation officials of the state concerned, and, when appropriate, local political bodies and other interested persons.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1996–2011 · leading case: Gustafson v. City of Lake Angelus, 76 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gustafson v. City of Lake Angelus, 76 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a) (emphasis added). Clearly, the FAA defers to local zoning ordinances, since this regulation requires the establishment of an airport in compliance with a municipality’s land use plan.”

Menard v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 548 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “An order issued pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 is appealable under 49 U.”

In Re Com. Airfield, 752 A.2d 13 (Vt. 2000). “See 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 . The FAA considers factors such as traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effect on existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, and the impact of existing or proposed manmade structures.”

Aviation Cadet Museum, Inc. v. Hammer, 283 S.W.3d 198 (Ark. 2008). “§ 40120 (c) (1998); and 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a) (2003)). 3 Physical harm does not necessarily mean direct physical damages to the premises.”

Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, 681 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Conn. 2010). “14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a). The airport airspace analysis results in a “determination” of the proposal — either “no objection,” “conditional,” or “objectionable” — but no matter the outcome of the analysis, the regulation is explicit that “[a] determination does not relieve the…”

Broadbent v. Allison, 155 F. Supp. 2d 520 (W.D.N.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “at 785 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a) (emphasis added)). This determination of the scope of the FAA’s own authority is entitled to great deference by federal courts.”

Emerald Dev. Co. v. McNeill, 120 S.W.3d 605 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 40120 (c) (1998), which provides that a remedy under the Act “is in addition to any other remedies provided by law,” and 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a) (2003), which recognizes local authorities’ jurisdiction over land use.”

Hoagland, Daniel v. Clear Lake Indiana, 415 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2005). “The court looked for guidance to FAA regulations, specifically 14 C.F.R. § 157.7 (a). The regulation is instructive.”

De Feyter v. FAA, 2011 DNH 049 (D.N.H. 2011). · cites it 2× “14 C.F.R. § 157.7 . This pro se action is de Feyter’s attempt to compel the FAA to impose such penalties.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.