14 C.F.R. § 16
Section 16 Objective Classification—Discontinued Operations
(a) Record here the earnings (losses) of discontinued nontransport operations. For the purposes of this system of accounts and reports discontinued operations shall refer to the disposal of investor controlled companies and nontransport ventures whether sold, abandoned, spun off, or otherwise disposed of. This account shall not include earnings or losses from discontinued transport or transport-related operations.
(b) This account shall be subdivided as follows by all air carrier groups:
Record here the results of operations of the discontinued operations.
Record here the gain or loss on the disposal of an operation. If loss is anticipated it should be provided for at the measurement date. If gain is anticipated it should be recognized when realized.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Wilson Air Ctr., LLC v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Memphis-Shelby Cnty. Airport Auth., Intervenor, 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004).
Wilson Air Ctr., LLC v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Memphis-Shelby Cnty. Airport Auth., Intervenor, 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004). “Wilson, believing that the Authority breached these assurances, filed a complaint with the Administration pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 16, alleging that the Authority had violated its federal obligations.”
Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587 (Colo. 1998). “See 14 C.F.R. § 16 .1.307 (establishing rules of practice for complaints involving violations of FAA regulations and grant assurances).”
41 North 73 West, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 408 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010). “14 C.F.R. Part 16 permits a person “directly and substantially affected” by an airport sponsor’s alleged noncompliance with a Grant Assurance to file a formal complaint with the FAA.”
J. Andrew Lange, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 208 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 2000). “On October 16, 1996, the FAA published new administrative procedures governing complaints about airport compliance with federal obligations.”
Port Auth. v. Dep't of Transp., 479 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “carriers from § 47129 adjudications, given that the DOT’s alternative fee dispute procedure, 14 C.F.R. Part 16, does not clearly authorize retroactive remedies.”
Boca Airport, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 389 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “14 C.F.R. Part 16 — Rules of Practice For Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings.”
Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 242 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001). “New rules, found at 14 C.F.R. Part 16, and entitled “Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings,” went into effect December 16, 1996.”
Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 536 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2008). “We also note that the FAA has consistently maintained that if good-faith efforts at informal dispute resolution fail, Flamingo Express may file a new formal complaint pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 16. The FAA has thus left open the possibility of a compromise between the parties…”
Paskar v. City of New York, 3 F. Supp. 3d 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “In order to put the current pleading in context, however, each of them is briefly summarized: (1) Plaintiffs initiated an administrative challenge before the Federal Aviation Agency (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 16, claiming that the City’s construction of the NSMTS…”
Ashton v. City of Concord, North Carolina, 337 F. Supp. 2d 735 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “That summer, and perhaps partially related to his observations, Ashton filed a complaint against the City with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. part 16. After filing this complaint, Ashton continued to observe activities at the Airport that he…”
Town of Fairview v. United States Dep't of Transp., 201 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). “In February 1999, Fairview filed an administrative claim with the FAA in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 16 alleging that McKinney was in violation of certain grant assurances under 49 U.”
Paskar v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 478 F. App'x 707 (2d Cir. 2012). “14 C.F.R. Part 16. Petitioners allege that the FAA and the City have violated grant assurances in agreements between the FAA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “Port Authority”) for funding for LaGuardia Airport (“LaGuardia”).”
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.