14 C.F.R. § 11.27

Are there other ways FAA collects specific rulemaking recommendations before we issue an NPRM?

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

Yes, the FAA obtains advice and recommendations from rulemaking advisory committees. One of these committees is the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), which is a formal standing committee comprised of representatives of aviation associations and industry, consumer groups, and interested individuals. In conducting its activities, ARAC complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the direction of FAA. We task ARAC with providing us with recommended rulemaking actions dealing with specific areas and problems. If we accept an ARAC recommendation to change an FAA rule, we ordinarily publish an NPRM using the procedures in this part. The FAA may establish other rulemaking advisory committees as needed to focus on specific issues for a limited period of time.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1977–1988 · leading case: James B. Rombough v. Fed. Aviation Admin., & Langhorne M. Bond, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 594 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James B. Rombough v. Fed. Aviation Admin., & Langhorne M. Bond, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 594 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1979). “14 C.F.R. § 11.27 (a). Nor does petitioner have a constitutional right to a hearing before denial of an exemption.”

Melvin M. Aman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1988). “Although the FAA is not required to develop a record conducive to substantial evidence review, see 14 C.F.R. § 11.27 (a), (j)(3) (1988), once it elects to build such a record there is a strong argument that its decision should be reviewed under the standard set forth in section…”

William L. Coppenbarger v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 558 F.2d 836 (7th Cir. 1977). “The statute provides only the vague standard that the Administrator may grant an exemption “if he finds that such action would be in the public interest.”

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ga. 1980). “” 14 C.F.R. § 11.27 (b). By the plain wording of the regulation, the Administrator can grant exemptions to airmen possessing any of the absolutely disqualifying conditions, and this court so holds.”

Holmes v. Helms, 705 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Although the regulations set forth at 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.27 (e), 11.27(g) do not add to the statutory language, 14 C.”

Sima Prods. Corp. v. McLucas, 460 F. Supp. 128 (N.D. Ill. 1978). “§ 553 (c) and 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.27 (a), 11.31, 11.33, 11.”

Bargmann v. Helms, 715 F.2d 638 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “See 14 C.F.R. § 11.27 (d)(f) (1983). In remanding the case to the agency, we express no views whatsoever on the merits of petitioners’ request.”

John R. Jensen v. The Adm'r of the Fed. Aviation Admin. & the Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 641 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1981). “The FAA administrator may grant an exemption from any FAA rule or regulation if he decides that to do so would be “in the public interest,” and “would not adversely affect safety,” 14 C.F.R. § 11.27 (e) (1980). The FAA argues that this procedure negates the contention that the…”

Airmark Corp. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 758 F.2d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “Under the FAA’s regulations governing actions on petitions for exemptions, 14 C.F.R. § 11.27 , summaries of the petitions are to be published in the Federal Register, allowing other parties 60 days to file comments in response thereto.”

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.