56132 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

control actions required by the 

compliance agreement or ordered by an 

inspector must be taken. 

(d) Harvesting requirements. 

Avocados may only be harvested 

between November 1 and March 31. 

Avocados must be hard ripe fruit at the 

mature green stage with stems attached. 

Fruit must not indent with moderate 

finger pressure and no part of the fruit 

shall be soft. The fruit must be moved 

to a registered packinghouse within 3 

hours of harvest or must be protected 

from fruit fly infestation until moved. 

The fruit must be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin 

while in transit to the packinghouse and 

while awaiting packing. 

(e) Packinghouse requirements. 

During the time registered 

packinghouses are in use for packing 

avocados for movement to the 

continental United States, the 

packinghouses may only accept 

avocados that are from registered places 

of production and that are produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section and of the compliance 

agreement required in paragraph (h) of 

this section. 

(1) Avocados must be packed within 

24 hours of harvest in an insectexclusionary packinghouse. All 

openings to the outside of the 

packinghouse must be covered by 

screening with openings of not more 

than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier 

that prevents pests from entering. 

(2) Fruit must be packed in insectproof packaging, or covered with insectproof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin, for 

transport to the continental United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until arrival in the continental 

United States. 

(3) Fruit boxes must be clearly marked 

‘‘Distribution limited to the following 

States: CO, CT, DE, DC, ID, IL, IN, IA, 

KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, 

MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, PA, RI, 

SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY; 

DISTRIBUTION TO OTHER STATES 

PROHIBITED’’ and each consignment 

must be identified in accordance with 

the requirements of § 318.13–3(g). 

(f) Inspection. A biometric sample of 

a size determined by APHIS will be 

visually inspected for quarantine pests 

by an inspector, and a portion of the 

fruit will be cut open to detect internal 

pests, including B. dorsalis. If any 

quarantine pests are found, the entire 

consignment of avocados will be 

prohibited from interstate movement 

unless it is treated with an approved 

quarantine treatment monitored by 

APHIS. If any B. dorsalis are found, the 

entire consignment of avocados will be 

prohibited from interstate movement, 

and the place of production producing 

that fruit will be suspended from the 

interstate shipment program until 

APHIS conducts an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

(g) Limited distribution. No Sharwil 

avocados moved under this program 

may be shipped to or distributed in 

locations in the continental United 

States other than Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, 

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. If 

the means of conveyance carrying a 

shipment stops en route in any other 

State, the Sharwil avocados may not be 

unloaded in that State. 

(h) Compliance agreement. Persons 

wishing to move avocados in 

accordance with this section must sign 

a compliance agreement in accordance 

with § 318.13–3(d) in which he or she 

agrees to comply with such conditions 

as may be required by the inspector in 

each specific case to prevent infestation. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 0579– 

0403) 

■ 3. In § 318.13–26, the section heading 

is revised and the OMB citation is 

added to the end of the section to read 

as follows: 

§ 318.13–26 Breadfruit, jackfruit, fresh 

pods of cowpea, dragon fruit, mangosteen, 

melon, and moringa pods from Hawaii. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0331) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of 

September 2013. 

Michael C. Gregoire, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22205 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 712 

RIN 1992–AA44 

Human Reliability Program: Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is amending its Human 

Reliability Program (HRP) regulations to 

eliminate references to obsolete 

provisions and to update part 712 to 

reflect organizational changes within 

the DOE. Today’s regulatory 

amendments do not alter substantive 

rights or obligations under current law. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 12, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regina G. Cano, Office of Security, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Regina.Cano@

hq.doe.gov; 301–903–3473. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

DOE’s HRP, is designed to ensure that 

individuals who occupy positions 

affording unescorted access to certain 

nuclear materials, nuclear explosive 

devices, programs, and facilities where 

(among other activities) nuclear 

explosives are tested produced, 

disassembled and transported, meet the 

highest standards of reliability, as well 

as physical and mental suitability, 

through a system of continuous 

evaluation of those individuals. The 

purpose of this continuous evaluation is 

to identify, in a timely manner, 

individuals whose judgment may be 

impaired by physical or mental/ 

personality disorders; the use of illegal 

drugs or the abuse of legal drugs or 

other substances; the abuse of alcohol; 

or any other condition or circumstance 

that may represent a reliability, safety, 

or security concern. 

A. Accelerated Access Authorization 

Program 

The HRP requires that all individuals 

who work in positions affording 

unescorted access to certain materials, 

facilities, and program be certified as 

meeting the highest standards of 

reliability and physical and mental/

personality suitability before such 

access may be granted. As promulgated 

in 2004 (69 FR 3213; January 23, 2004), 

the part 712 rule requires in 

§ 712.11(a)(1) that each individual 

applying for or in an HRP position must 

have a DOE ‘‘Q’’ access authorization 

based on a background investigation, 

‘‘except for security police officers who 

have been granted an interim ‘‘Q’’ 

through the Accelerated Access 

Authorization Program (AAAP).’’ The 

AAAP is defined in the current rule as 

‘‘the DOE program for granting interim 

access to classified matter and special 

nuclear material based on a drug test, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 56133 

a National Agency Check, a 

psychological assessment, a 

counterintelligence-scope polygraph 

examination in accordance with 10 CFR 

part 709, and a review of the applicant’s 

completed ‘‘Questionnaire for National 

Security Positions’’ (Standard Form 

86).’’ 

In 2007, however, the Chief Health, 

Safety and Security Officer directed the 

termination of the AAAP as no longer 

necessary to meet DOE’s access 

authorization needs. This elimination of 

the AAAP from the process for granting 

interim access authorizations was 

formalized on July 21, 2011 by DOE 

Order 472.2, Personnel Security. DOE is 

amending the part 712 rule now to 

eliminate any reference to the obsolete 

AAAP. 

B. Questionnaire for National Security 

Positions (QNSP), Part 2 

One of the four components of the 

annual HRP recertification process 

involves a review of an HRP 

incumbent’s personnel security file by 

the DOE office responsible for the ‘‘Q’’ 

access authorization held by that 

individual. As part of this review, the 

current HRP rule requires the annual 

submission of the ‘‘SF–86, OMB Control 

No. 3206–0007, Questionnaire for 

National Security Positions [QNSP], 

Part 2’’ (emphasis added) by each HRP 

incumbent. Under the current rule, the 

submission of the QNSP Part 2 (1995 

QNSP) requires an HRP incumbent to 

report sensitive personal information 

the DOE deems relevant for determining 

continued eligibility for a ‘‘Q’’ access 

authorization. 

In July 2008, however, OPM revised 

the QNSP, both structurally and 

substantively, and the new QNSP (2008 

QNSP) was issued a new OMB control 

number. Specifically, in addition to 

eliminating the former two-part 

structure of the 1995 version, the 2008 

QNSP differs from the 1995 version as 

to what is reportable. Based on these 

substantive differences and the change 

to the OMB control number, DOE no 

longer collects information from the 

public using the version of the QNSP 

referenced in the current rule. 

Therefore, DOE is amending the rule to 

eliminate the requirement for 

submission of the SF–86, OMB Control 

No. 3206–0007, QNSP Part 2. 

C. Internal Agency Responsibilities 

DOE is amending part 712 to reflect 

recent organizational changes within 

DOE. Under current regulations, the 

Director, Office of Policy, within the 

Office of Health, Safety and Security 

(HSS) is responsible for HRP policy. The 

Chief Health, Safety and Security 

Officer has transferred the responsibility 

for HRP policy to the Director, Office of 

Security within HSS. Therefore, this 

amendment replaces all references to 

the former ‘‘Director, Office of Policy’’ 

with ‘‘Director, Office of Security, or 

designee.’’ 

In addition, the definition of 

‘‘Manager’’ in the current rule does not 

reflect recent changes within DOE’s 

organizational structure. Part 712 

defines ‘‘Manager’’ to mean ‘‘the 

Manager of the Chicago, Idaho, Oak 

Ridge, Richland, and Savannah River 

Operations Offices; Manager of the 

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office and 

the Schenectady Naval Reactors Office; 

Site Office Managers for Livermore, Los 

Alamos, Sandia, Y–12, Nevada, Pantex, 

Kansas City, and Savannah River; 

Director of the Service Center, 

Albuquerque; Assistant Deputy 

Administrator for the Office of Secure 

Transportation, Albuquerque; and for 

the Washington, DC area, the Deputy 

Chief for Operations, Office of HSS.’’ At 

this time, the Managers of the Chicago 

Operations Office; the Pittsburgh and 

Schenectady Naval Reactors Offices; 

Site Office Managers for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) Savannah River, Y–12 and 

Pantex sites; the Director of the NNSA 

Service Center; and the Deputy Chief for 

Operations no longer have HRP 

management responsibilities under part 

712 or the named offices have been 

eliminated as a result of reorganization. 

In addition, a number of site-level DOE 

or NNSA line-management officials 

have been assigned HRP ‘‘Manager’’ 

authorities, but are not listed in the 

definition of ‘‘Manager.’’ 

DOE has decided to substitute the 

following definition of ‘‘Manager’’ for 

the current listing in § 712.3: ‘‘Manager 

means the senior Federal line manager 

at a departmental site or Federal office 

with HRP-designated positions.’’ This 

revised definition in no way changes the 

actual HRP authorities of the senior 

Federal line management officials, who 

otherwise would be listed if the current 

paradigm were continued. On the other 

hand, such a functional definition 

should eliminate the need in future for 

technical amendments that merely 

reflect changed nomenclature or the 

removal of any HRP responsibilities at 

a site or within a program management 

office. 

II. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Today’s regulatory action has been 

determined not to be ‘‘a significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the OMB Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

DOE has also reviewed this rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. DOE believes that 

today’s rule is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

agencies adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs and, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches maximize net benefits. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56134 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies to ensure that 

the potential impacts of its draft rules 

on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), 

and has made them available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web 

site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

The regulatory changes in this notice 

of final rulemaking are technical 

amendments to remove references to a 

program that no longer exists and to a 

form that is no longer in use, and to 

conform references to position 

descriptions that relate solely to internal 

agency organization, management or 

personnel, and as such, are not subject 

to the requirement for a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553). Consequently, this rulemaking is 

exempt from the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This final rule does not impose a 

collection of information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has concluded that promulgation 

of this rule falls into a class of actions 

that would not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant impact 

on the human environment, as 

determined by DOE’s regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this 

rule amends existing regulations 

without changing the environmental 

effect of the regulations being amended, 

and, therefore, is covered under the 

Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 

of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR 

part 1021. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. The Executive Order 

also requires agencies to have an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations (65 FR 

13735). DOE has examined today’s rule 

and has determined that it does not 

preempt State law and does not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. No further action 

is required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of a Federal regulatory action 

on State, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector. DOE has 

determined that today’s regulatory 

action does not impose a Federal 

mandate on State, local or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s rulemaking under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 56135 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

K. Administrative Procedure Act 

The regulatory changes in this notice 

of final rulemaking consist of technical 

amendments to remove references a 

program that no longer exists and to a 

form that is no longer in use, and to 

conform references to position 

descriptions that relate solely to internal 

agency organization, management or 

personnel. As such, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(a)(2), this rule is not subject to the 

rulemaking requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 

including the requirements to provide 

prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment and a 30-day delay in 

effective date. 

L. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule prior 

to the effective date set forth at the 

outset of this notice. The report will 

state that it has been determined that 

the rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 712 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Classified 

information, Drug abuse, Government 

contracts, Government employees, 

Health, Occupational safety and health, 

Radiation protection, Security measures. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 29, 

2013. 

Glenn Podonsky, 

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 712 of 

chapter III, title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 712—HUMAN RELIABILITY 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 712 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 

42 U.S.C. 5814–5815; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 

50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; E.O. 10450, 3 CFR 

1949–1953 Comp., p. 936, as amended; E.O. 

10865, 3 CFR 1959–1963 Comp., p. 398, as 

amended; 3 CFR Chap. IV. 

■ 2. Section 712.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Accelerated Access Authorization 

Program.’’ 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Manager’’ to read as follows: 

§ 712.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Manager means the senior Federal 

line manager at a departmental site or 

Federal office with HRP-designated 

positions. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 712.11(a)(1) and (2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 712.11 General requirements for HRP 

certification. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A DOE ‘‘Q’’ access authorization 

based on a background investigation; 

(2) An annual review of the personnel 

security file; 

* * * * * 

§ 712.12 [Amended] 

■ 4. Sections 712.12(e) and 712.12(f)(1) 

are amended by removing ‘‘Policy’’ after 

‘‘Office of’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘Security, or designee.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2013–22231 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 16 

[Docket No.: FAA–2012–0176; Amendment 

No. 16–1] 

RIN 2120–AJ97 

Rules of Practice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings (Retrospective 

Regulatory Review) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action updates, 

simplifies, and streamlines rules of 

practice and procedure for filing and 

adjudicating complaints against 

federally-assisted airports. It improves 

efficiency by enabling parties to file 

submissions with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) electronically, 

and by incorporating modern business 

practices into how the FAA handles 

complaints. This amendment is 

necessary to reflect changes in 

applicable laws and regulations, and to 

apply lessons learned since the existing 

rules were implemented in 1996. 

DATES: Effective November 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical or legal questions concerning 

this action, contact Jessie Di Gregory, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, Airport Law 

Branch (AGC–610), 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3199; fax (202) 

267–5769; email: Jessie.DiGregory@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Sections 46101, 

‘‘Complaint and Investigations’’ and 

46104, ‘‘Evidence,’’ and Part B, Section 

47122, ‘‘Administrative.’’ Under these 

sections, Congress provided for the FAA 

to prescribe regulations for practices, 

methods, and procedures to hear 

complaints concerning compliance by 

federally-assisted airports and carry out 

investigations and conduct proceedings 

in a way conducive to justice and the 

proper dispatch of business. This 

rulemaking is within the scope of that 

authority because it would amend rules 

necessary to investigate, hear, and 

provide rulings on matters related to 

federally-assisted airport conduct. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

The FAA is required by statute to 

adjudicate complaints on matters within 

the agency’s authority (49 U.S.C. 46014). 

Title 14 CFR part 16, Rules of Practice 

for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings (Part 16), 

provides a process for investigating and 

adjudicating complaints against 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES