(a) If you propose any construction or alteration described in § 77.9, you must provide adequate notice to the FAA of that construction or alteration.
(b) If requested by the FAA, you must also file supplemental notice before the start date and upon completion of certain construction or alterations that are described in § 77.9.
(c) Notice received by the FAA under this subpart is used to:
(1) Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports;
(2) Determine whether the effect of proposed construction or alteration is a hazard to air navigation;
(3) Determine appropriate marking and lighting recommendations, using FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting;
(4) Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and
(5) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration of objects that affect the navigable airspace, including the revision of charts, when necessary.
Notes of Decisions
Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, 681 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Conn. 2010).
“The Part 77 regulations — which explicitly apply to “objects of natural growth,” 14 C.F.R. §§ 77.5 (a), 77.21 — state in relevant part that an object is considered “an obstruction to air navigation” if it is of greater height than any one of several imaginary surfaces.”
Taylor v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 44718 ; 14 C.F.R. §§ 77.5 , 77.9, 77.13. A building may present an obstacle, triggering the need for a 1 The Melrose Air Force Range is a military air and ground training range used by Cannon Air Force Base.”
Dunn v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 44718 (a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 77.5 , 77.9. After receiving a notice, FAA decides whether construction may result in an obstruction of the navigable airspace, an interference with air navigation facilities and equipment or the navigable airspace, or, after consultation with the…”
Furnas v. Appalachian Power Co. (S.D.W. Va 2024).
“14 C.F.R. § 77.5 (c). The Plaintiff’s hurdle in relying on the notice requirements is a lack of evidence of any violation, in contrast to Eiserman v.”
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.