C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—PROCEDURAL RULES › PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES › Subpart A—Rulemaking Procedures

14 C.F.R. § 11.25

How does FAA issue rules?

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

(a) The FAA uses APA rulemaking procedures to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations. To propose or adopt a new regulation, or to change a current regulation, FAA will issue one or more of the following documents. We publish these rulemaking documents in the Federal Register unless we name and personally serve a copy of a rule on every person subject to it. We also make all documents available to the public by posting them in the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov.

(1) An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

(2) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

(3) A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

(4) A final rule.

(5) A final rule with request for comments.

(6) A direct final rule.

(b) Each of the rulemaking documents in paragraph (a) of this section generally contains the following information:

(1) The topic involved in the rulemaking document.

(2) FAA's legal authority for issuing the rulemaking document.

(3) How interested persons may participate in the rulemaking proceeding (for example, by filing written comments or making oral presentations at a public meeting).

(4) Whom to call if you have questions about the rulemaking document.

(5) The date, time, and place of any public meetings FAA will hold to discuss the rulemaking document.

(6) The docket number and regulation identifier number (RIN) for the rulemaking proceeding.

[Doc. No. 1999-6622, 65 FR 50863, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68474, Dec. 5, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: Melvin M. Aman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Melvin M. Aman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.25 -.27 (1988). Following Aqua Slide, we would assign diminished weight to the statements in question in view of the absence of an opportunity for public comment on these statements, though the adjustment would be smaller in this case since interested parties…”
Bert M. Yetman, Jerry L. Adams, Frank L. Ahern v. Jane Garvey, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 261 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “81 (formerly 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 (b)(5)). And while that standard had proved insurmountable to phots for thirty-five years, in 1995, the FAA further hardened its stance, announcing that future petitions for exemptions would be summarily denied unless the petitions contain a…”
John E. Starr v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 589 F.2d 307 (7th Cir. 1979). “14 C.F.R. § 11.25 . He argues that the results of his physical examinations, examinations based on the testing standards espoused by the experts testifying in Houghton, supra, do establish a level of safety equal to that of the Age 60 Rule.”
James B. Rombough v. Fed. Aviation Admin., & Langhorne M. Bond, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 594 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1979). “25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 (1977). Under the FAA Regulations, each petition for exemption must contain “any information, views or arguments available to the petitioner to support the action sought, the reasons why the granting of the request would…”
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ga. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 1421 (c); 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 (b)(5). However, under the second point in the Three-Point Plan for Insuring Air Safety, the defendants can “waive” certain medical requirements without making any finding as to the public interest.”
Sima Prods. Corp., an Illinois Corp. v. Dr. John McLucas Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 612 F.2d 309 (7th Cir. 1980). “2 See 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 . *312 Plaintiffs argued that signs like the ones posted in the O’Hare airport are misleading, and contrary to both scientific fact and personal experience of the plaintiffs.”
Maurice Keating, Jr. v. Fed. Aviation Admin. & Langhorne M. Bond, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 610 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1980). “KEATING’S ARGUMENTS Keating contends that the FAA’s action was arbitrary and capricious because the Administration: (1) failed to explain adequately the reason for the denial; (2) relied on the rationale for the Age 60 Rule to refuse to grant any exemptions from the Rule; and…”
Coupé v. Fed. Express Corp., 121 F.3d 1022 (6th Cir. 1997). “See 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 . Mr. Coupé knew of the FAA’s exemption procedure, as is evidenced by the fact that he requested such an exemption in 1994.”
John H. Baker v. Fed. Aviation Admin., & James B. Busey, Adm'r, 917 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1990). “’s present regulations — which dangle the possibility of an exemption to a pilot who can show “why the exemption would not adversely affect safety” or why, at least, it “would provide a level of safety equal to that provided by the rule,” 14 C.”
Sima Prods. Corp. v. McLucas, 460 F. Supp. 128 (N.D. Ill. 1978). “On August 31,1976, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.25 , plaintiffs filed a petition with defendant requesting that defendant promulgate an amendment to rule 121.”
Dickson v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 480 F. App'x 263 (5th Cir. 2012). “14 C.F.R. § 11.25 (a) (2007). Because nothing in the FAA regulations suggests that the contents of a letter addressed to an airman regarding his application for Authorization constitutes an established *271 policy or procedure, Dickson’s argument lacks merit.”
Global Int'l Airways Corp. v. Engen (In Re Global Int'l Airways Corp., ), 48 B.R. 849 (W.D. Mo. 1985). “14 C.F.R. § 11.25 (b). Apparently because of the mounting total of daily losses (or perhaps because it received word of the favorable Airmark decision and other stay requests), plaintiff moved the bankruptcy court, on April 2,1985, to grant it a preliminary injunction and to…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 14 C.F.R. § 11.25(b)(1) — 1 case
Melvin M. Aman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1988). “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.25 -.27 (1988). Following Aqua Slide, we would assign diminished weight to the statements in question in view of the absence of an opportunity for public comment on these statements, though the adjustment would be smaller in this case since interested parties…”
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.