U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART B— AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE › Chapter CHAPTER 475— NOISE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— NATIONAL AVIATION NOISE POLICY

49 U.S.C. § 47526

Limitations for noncomplying airport noise and access restrictions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless the Secretary of Transportation is satisfied that an airport is not imposing an airport noise or access restriction not in compliance with this subchapter, the airport may not—(1) receive money under subchapter I of chapter 471 of this title; or(2) impose a passenger facility charge under section 40117 of this title.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1291; Pub. L. 112–95, title I, § 111(c)(2)(A)(viii), Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 18.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

47526

49 App.:2156.

Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, § 9307, 104 Stat. 1388–382.

In this section, before clause (1), the words “Under no conditions” are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the words “or collect” are omitted as surplus.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Par. (2). Pub. L. 112–95 substituted “charge” for “fee”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2015–2017 · leading case: Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 841 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 841 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The Town highlights—as the district court did—49 U.S.C. § 47526, which states that an airport may not receive AIP grants or collect passenger facility charges “[u]nless the' Secretary of Transportation is satisfied” that, insofar as the airport imposes any noise or access…”
Coalition for Competitive Elec., Dynegy Inc. v. Zibelman, 272 F. Supp. 3d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “at 145-46 (citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 47526 , 47533). The Second Circuit reasoned that “[t]he fact that Congress conferred such broad enforcement authority on the [Federal Aviation Administration], and not on private parties, does not imply its intent to bar such parties from invoking…”
Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 152 F. Supp. 3d 90 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “” 49 U.S.C. § 47526 , On January 29, 2015,;Plaintiffs FOEHA, Analar, HAI, HeliFlite, and Liberty filed the FAA Action, principally, alleging that the FAA exceeded its statutory authority and violated.”
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.