FAA Notice: technical amendment to update regulations
by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty Source: Federal Register [Federal Register: February 16, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 32)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 8892-8894] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16fe11-3] ======================================================================= ———————— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 21, 61, 63, 91, 93, 121, 135, 142, 145, and 183 [Docket No. FAA-2011-0092; Amendment Nos. 21-93, 61-126, 63-38, 77-14, 91-320, 93-96, 121-352, 135-123, 142-6, 145-28, 183-14] Removal of Expired Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and References AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. ———————— SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making minor technical changes to its regulations by removing expired Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) and cross-references, as well as other expired or obsolete regulations. None of these changes are substantive in nature since the regulations in question have expired and are not currently in effect. This technical amendment is necessary to update our regulations. The rule will not impose any additional burden or restriction on persons or organizations affected by these regulations. DATES: Effective February 16, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Smith, (202) 267-9682; Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Read more detail on Recent Aviation Law Posts –
Legal notice about the FAA Notice: technical amendment to update regulations
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to FAA Notice: technical amendment to update regulations?
- FAA Notice of Proposed Interpretation concerning 14 CFR Part 135
- HC notice to DGCA on Civil Aviation Regulation amendment (The Times of India)
- FAA Notice: Policy Clarifying Definition of "Actively Engaged" for Purposes of Inspector Authorization
- Draft Benchmarks (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
- US federal banking agencies issue final regulations promulgating use of municipal obligations for LCR compliance
- Draft Statutory Instrument: The Interchange Fee (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- UK “No-Deal Brexit” Technical Notice Sets Out Plans on EU – UK Data Flows
- FAA Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee Teleconference on March 17, 2011 at 2 pm
- FAA Notice of Meeting: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee-Public Teleconference