(a) You may petition the FAA official that issued the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation to revise or reconsider the determination based on new facts or to extend the effective period of the determination, provided that:
(1) Actual structural work of the proposed construction or alteration, such as the laying of a foundation, but not including excavation, has not been started; and
(2) The petition is submitted at least 15 days before the expiration date of the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
(b) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for those construction or alteration proposals not requiring an FCC construction permit may be extended by the FAA one time for a period not to exceed 18 months.
(c) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for a proposal requiring an FCC construction permit may be granted extensions for up to 18 months, provided that:
(1) You submit evidence that an application for a construction permit/license was filed with the FCC for the associated site within 6 months of issuance of the determination; and
(2) You submit evidence that additional time is warranted because of FCC requirements; and
(3) Where the FCC issues a construction permit, a final Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation is effective until the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of the construction. If an extension of the original FCC completion date is needed, an extension of the FAA determination must be requested from the Obstruction Evaluation Service (OES).
(4) If the Commission refuses to issue a construction permit, the final determination expires on the date of its refusal.
Notes of Decisions
City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
· cites it 4× “14 C.F.R. § 77.35 . The study is to be conducted by the FAA Regional Director for the region where the proposed structure would be built.”
BFI Waste Sys. of North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 293 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 5× “14 C.F.R. § 77.35 (a), (b). Once an aeronautical study has been initiated, the FAA applies all of its “operational, procedural and electronic” standards (including those pertaining to radar coverage) to “determine if the object being studied would actually be a hazard to air…”
Reminga v. United States, 631 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 3× “14 C.F.R. § 77.35 -.37. The district court recognized that the FAA has limited authority to control the construction of broadcast towers.”
Big Stone Broad., Inc. v. Lindbloom, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D.S.D. 2001).
“Under 14 C.F.R. § 77.35 , the FAA, when conducting an aeronautical study, is to solicit comments from all interested persons and is to explore objections to the proposal.”
Flowers Mill Assocs. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 182 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
“After conducting an aeronautical study concerning the effect of plaintiff’s proposal on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and after soliciting comments from interested parties pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 77.35 (b)(1), FAA issued a Determination of Hazard to Air…”
White Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 692 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “See 14 CFR § 77.35 . On June 12,1981, the central regional office issued a determination that the proposed radio tower would pose “no hazard” to air navigation.”
Breneman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 30 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
“” 14 C.F.R. § 77.35 (c). Petitioners have not established that the purely advisory determination prevents *8 them from going ahead with the project.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 77.35(a) — 1 case
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.