C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—PROCEDURAL RULES › PART 16—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FEDERALLY-ASSISTED AIRPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS › Subpart G—Judicial Review

14 C.F.R. § 16.247

Judicial review of a final decision and order

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

(a) A person may seek judicial review, in a United States Court of Appeals, of a final decision and order of the Associate Administrator, and of an order of dismissal with prejudice issued by the Director, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 46110 or 49 U.S.C. 47106(d) and 47111(d). A party seeking judicial review shall file a petition for review with the Court not later than 60 days after the order has been served on the party or within 60 days after the entry of an order under 49 U.S.C. 46110.

(b) The following do not constitute final decisions and orders subject to judicial review:

(1) An FAA decision to dismiss a complaint without prejudice, as set forth in § 16.27;

(2) A Director's Determination;

(3) An initial decision issued by a hearing officer at the conclusion of a hearing;

(4) A Director's Determination or an initial decision of a hearing officer becomes the final decision of the Associate Administrator because it was not appealed within the applicable time periods provided under §§ 16.33(c) and 16.241(b).

[Doc. No. 27783, 61 FR 54004, Oct. 16, 1996. Redesignated and amended by Amdt. 16-1, 78 FR 56148, Sept. 12, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: 41 North 73 West, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 408 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
41 North 73 West, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 408 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010). “§ 46110 ; 14 C.F.R. § 16.247 (a). 2. Factual Background Much of this litigation centers around a category of aircraft operations known as “general aviation.”
Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 536 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2008). “” The Administrator also recognized that if future informal efforts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, Flamingo Express would also have the option of filing a new formal complaint against the City.”
Town of Fairview v. United States Dep't of Transp., 201 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “7 See 14 C.F.R. § 16.247 (a person may seek judicial review in the courts of appeals pursuant to 49 U.”
Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 152 F. Supp. 3d 90 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “§ 46110 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 16.247 (a). The FAA’s administrative grant enforcement procedure is- not insignificant.”
Skydive Myrtle Beach Inc. v. Horry Cnty. Dept of Airports (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “136 (citing 14 C.F.R. § 16.247 (a)). 1 Citations to the “J.”
MSP Small Bus. Concessions All. v. Metro. Airports Comm'n (D. Minnesota 2025). “14 C.F.R. § 16.247 (a). Id. at *2–3. Contrary to MSBCA’s contention, using the Court’s equity jurisdiction to hear its ACDBE claim and provide its members with injunctive and declaratory relief would allow it to end-run the congressional choice for administrative, rather than…”
Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Fed Aviation Admin (6th Cir. 2008). “” The Administrator also recognized that if future informal efforts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, Flamingo Express would also have the option of filing a new formal complaint against the City.”
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.