C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER E—AIRSPACE › PART 77—SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE › Subpart E—Petitions for Discretionary Review

14 C.F.R. § 77.37

General

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

(a) If you are the sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical comment on a proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an opportunity to state it, you may petition the FAA for a discretionary review of a determination, revision, or extension of a determination issued by the FAA.

(b) You may not file a petition for discretionary review for a Determination of No Hazard that is issued for a temporary structure, marking and lighting recommendation, or when a proposed structure or alteration does not exceed obstruction standards contained in subpart C of this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Wset, Inc., Intervenor, 600 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Wset, Inc., Intervenor, 600 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . The Administrator’s review may be based on written materials or on a public hearing held in accordance with procedures prescribed in 14 C.”
Backcountry Against Dumps v. Faa, 77 F.4th 1260 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 13× “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . The FAA rejected Backcountry’s petition on the sole ground that Backcountry did not comment on the study during the comment period.”
The CARROLL AIRPORT Comm'n, Appellee, v. Loren W. DANNER & Pan Danner, Appellants., 927 N.W.2d 635 (Iowa 2019). “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 77.37 , .39, .41 (2013). The Danners complied with the FAA's instructions, adding lights and painting the grain leg.”
Air Line Pilots' Ass'n Int'l v. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., John H. Shaffer, Adm'r, 446 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1971). · cites it 2× “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 (c) (1)-(2). II. FACTS The instant case began when three Dallas corporations proposed the construction of three high-rise complexes to be built in downtown Dallas.”
Paskar v. United States Dep't of Transp., 714 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2013). “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . In response, the City redesigned the proposed Station, lowering its height to 100 feet and moving, it out of the runway protection zone.”
Flowers Mill Assocs. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 182 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 2× “Flowers Mill appealed from this determination and was granted discretionary review to be conducted on the basis of written materials submitted pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 77.37 (c)(1). In conjunction with the appeal, Flowers Mill submitted a runway displacement plan which would…”
Aeronautics Comm'n of Indiana v. State Ex Rel. Emmis Broad. Corp., 440 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “An initial hazard/no-hazard determination is made by a staff member in the FAA’s Air Traffic Division, and that decision is final unless the FAA Administrator grants discretionary review.”
BFI Waste Sys. of North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 293 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . A hazard/no-hazard determination has “no enforceable legal effect.”
Breneman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 30 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “To begin with, the decision to grant administrative review of a hazard determination is committed to agency discretion, see 14 C.F.R. § 77.37 (c) (“The Administrator examines each petition and decides whether a review will be made[J”), and is therefore insulated from judicial…”
Susan Boggs v. FAA (6th Cir. 2019). “That procedure is found in 14 C.F.R. § 77.37 (a “Part 77 proceeding”), which permits an individual to ask the FAA to reconsider its decision that a project is or is not a hazard.”
Paskar v. USDOT (2d Cir. 2013). “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . In response, the City redesigned the proposed Station, lowering its height to 100 feet and moving it out of the runway protection zone.”
Paskar v. USDOT (2d Cir. 2013). “14 C.F.R. § 77.37 . In response, the City redesigned the proposed Station, lowering its height to 100 feet and moving it out of the runway protection zone.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.