This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

5655 

Vol. 87, No. 22 

Wednesday, February 2, 2022 

1 85 FR 78707 (December 7, 2020); RIN 2105– 

AE72; Docket DOT–OST–2019–0182. 

2 85 FR 78707. 

3 14 CFR 399.79. 

4 14 CFR 399.75. 

5 14 CFR 399.79(b); 85 FR 78708. 

6https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-orderon-promoting-competition-in-the-americaneconomy/. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 399 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2021–0142] 

RIN 2105–AF03 

Procedures in Regulating Unfair or 

Deceptive Practices 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department or DOT) is 

amending its regulations regarding the 

hearing procedures that are available 

when the Department proposes a 

discretionary aviation consumer 

protection rulemaking declaring a 

practice to be unfair or deceptive. This 

final rule simplifies the hearing 

procedures and allows the Department 

greater flexibility to conduct a hearing 

in a manner that would not unduly 

delay the aviation consumer protection 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective March 4, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Gorman, Kimberly Graber, or 

Blane Workie, Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protection, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366– 

9342, 202–366–7152 (fax); 

robert.gorman@dot.gov; 

kimberly.graber@dot.gov; blane.workie@

dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. The Unfair and Deceptive Practices 

Statute and the Department’s Recent 

Rulemaking 

The Department’s authority to 

regulate unfair and deceptive practices 

in air transportation or the sale of air 

transportation is found at 49 U.S.C. 

41712 (section 41712) in conjunction 

with its rulemaking authority under 49 

U.S.C. 40113, which states that the 

Department may take action that it 

considers necessary to carry out this 

part, including prescribing regulations. 

Section 41712 gives the Department the 

authority to investigate and decide 

whether an air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, or ticket agent is engaged in an 

unfair or deceptive practice in air 

transportation or the sale of air 

transportation. Under section 41712, 

after notice and an opportunity for a 

hearing, the Department has the 

authority to issue orders to stop an 

unfair or deceptive practice. A different 

statute, 49 U.S.C. 46301, gives the 

Department the authority to issue civil 

penalties for violations of section 41712 

or for any regulation issued under the 

authority of section 41712. 

On December 20, 2020, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a final rule titled ‘‘Defining 

Unfair or Deceptive Practices’’ (UDP 

Final Rule).1 The UDP Final Rule was 

intended to provide regulated entities 

and other stakeholders with greater 

clarity about the Department’s 

enforcement and regulatory processes 

with respect to aviation consumer 

protection actions under section 41712.2

It sets forth procedures that the 

Department would use when 

conducting future enforcement actions 

under the authority of section 41712.3

The UDP Final Rule also sets forth 

procedures, including evidentiary 

hearing procedures, that the Department 

would use when conducting future 

discretionary rulemaking actions under 

the authority of section 41712.4 Those 

procedures for evidentiary hearings are 

being amended through this rulemaking. 

In addition, the UDP Final Rule 

defined the terms ‘‘unfair’’ and 

‘‘deceptive’’ for purposes of section 

41712. The definitions were modeled 

after Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

precedent; they also reflect the 

Department’s longstanding 

interpretation of those terms.5 However, 

the UDP Final Rule did not fully resolve 

the meaning of unfair or deceptive. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14036, 

‘‘Promoting Competition in the 

American Economy,’’ issued by 

President Biden on July 9, 2021, directs 

the Department to ‘‘start development of 

proposed amendments’’ to its 

definitions of the terms ‘unfair’ and 

‘deceptive’ in 49 U.S.C. 41712.6 In 

keeping with this Executive Order, the 

Department intends to issue in the near 

future an interpretive rule that would 

more clearly apprise the public of the 

Department’s interpretation of the 

definitions of ‘‘unfair’’ and ‘‘deceptive’’ 

found in section 41712, and as defined 

by the Department at 14 CFR 399.79. 

B. Amendments to Evidentiary Hearing 

Provisions for Discretionary Aviation 

Consumer Protection Rulemakings 

The UDP Final Rule established the 

Department’s procedures for hearings 

for discretionary aviation consumer 

protection rulemaking actions 

promulgated under the authority of 

section 41712. The Department is 

revising those procedures after a careful 

review of recent changes in the 

Department’s and FTC’s internal 

policies and procedures relating to the 

issuance of rulemaking documents and 

concern that the existing hearing 

procedures for discretionary aviation 

consumer protections actions do not 

provide the Department with enough 

flexibility to adapt internal procedures 

to facilitate efficient rulemaking. The 

Department is concerned that the overly 

particularized rigidity of the existing 

procedures in the UDP Final Rule may 

have the unintended consequence of 

causing unnecessary delay. The 

Department has determined that 

although it remains useful to have 

specific procedures for evidentiary 

hearings, the procedures should be 

streamlined to provide greater flexibility 

and ensure that important consumer 

protection rulemakings are not unduly 

delayed. 

1. Evidentiary Hearing Provisions as 

Established in the UDP Final Rule 

Under the hearing provisions of the 

UDP Final Rule, if the Department 

proposes a new discretionary 

rulemaking declaring a practice to be 

unfair or deceptive, then any interested 

party may file a petition for an 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5656 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7A discretionary rulemaking is one that is not 

mandated by statute. See 14 CFR 399.75(c). 

8 85 FR 78716–78717; 14 CFR 399.75(b)(1). 

9 Id. at 78716–78717; 14 CFR 399.75(b)(2). 

10 Id. at 78717; 14 CFR 399.75(b)(3). 

11 14 CFR 399.75(b)(5). 

12 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(i). 

13 Id. 

14 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(ii). 

15 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(iii). 

16 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(iv). 

17 14 CFR 399.75(b)(7). 

18 Id. 

19 85 FR 78711. 

20 Id. at 78712. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25 DOT Final Rule, ‘‘Administrative Rulemaking, 

Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,’’ 86 FR 

17292 (April 2, 2021) (effective May 3, 2021), 

repealing most of 49 CFR part 5, which had been 

found at 84 FR 71714 (December 27, 2019, effective 

January 27, 2020). Despite this repeal, the hearing 

procedures for aviation consumer protection 

rulemakings found in 14 CFR 399.75 remained 

intact. 

26 ‘‘Revisions to Rules of Practice,’’ 86 FR 38542 

(July 22, 2021). Pursuant to the FTC Act, the FTC 

is required to ‘‘provide an opportunity for an 

informal hearing’’ before issuing a rule declaring a 

specific act or practice to be unfair or deceptive. 15 

U.S.C. 57a(b)(1)(C); Magnuson-Moss Warranty— 

Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 

1975, Public Law 93–637. The FTC Act also sets 

forth the basic requirements for such a hearing. 5 

U.S.C. 57a(c). The FTC’s rules of practice 

implementing the FTC Act originally contained 

provisions that went beyond what the FTC Act 

itself called for. 

27 Id. at 38546, 38551. Under the FTC’s new rules, 

the Chief Presiding Officer appoints the presiding 

officer for the hearing. Id. at 38549; 16 CFR 1.13(a). 

The FTC Chair is the Chief Presiding Officer, unless 

the Chair appoints another Commissioner or an 

individual ‘‘who is not responsible to any other 

official or employee of the Commission.’’ 16 CFR 

0.8. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. at 38552. 

evidentiary hearing.7 The petition must 

be directed to the attention of the 

General Counsel, and must be filed 

before the close of the comment period 

on the proposed rule.8 To obtain an 

evidentiary hearing, the party must 

demonstrate that: (1) The proposed rule 

depends on conclusions concerning one 

or more specific scientific, technical, 

economic, or other factual issues that 

are genuinely in dispute or that may not 

satisfy the requirements of the 

Information Quality Act; (2) the 

ordinary public comment process is 

unlikely to provide an adequate 

examination of the issues to permit a 

fully informed judgment; and (3) the 

resolution of the disputed factual issues 

would likely have a material effect on 

the costs and benefits of the proposed 

rule.9 Even if the petitioner establishes 

these elements, the General Counsel 

may still deny the petition if: (1) The 

hearing would not advance the 

consideration of the proposed rule; or 

(2) the hearing would unreasonably 

delay completion of the rulemaking.10

The existing procedures provide that 

if the General Counsel grants the 

petition, then a notice of the hearing 

must be placed in the Federal Register, 

identifying the specific issues that will 

be considered.11 The General Counsel 

must develop procedures for conducting 

evidentiary hearings.12 Interested 

parties must have a reasonable 

opportunity to participate in the hearing 

through the presentation of testimony 

and written submissions.13 The General 

Counsel must appoint a ‘‘neutral 

officer’’ to preside over the hearing, and 

must allow ‘‘a reasonable opportunity to 

question the presenters.’’ 14 After the 

hearing is closed, the neutral officer 

must place minutes of the meeting on 

the docket, along with proposed 

findings of fact on the disputed issues.15

Interested parties who participated in 

the hearing must be given the 

opportunity to file ‘‘statements of 

agreement or objection’’ to the proposed 

findings.16

After the hearing, the General Counsel 

must consider the record of the hearing, 

along with the neutral officer’s findings, 

and determine whether to: (1) Terminate 

the proposed rulemaking; (2) modify it 

by filing a new or supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking; or (3) finalize 

the rule without material changes.17

Any of these choices must be 

accompanied by a notice in the Federal 

Register explaining the basis for the 

decision.18

2. Evidentiary Hearing Provisions— 

Rationale 

The Department indicated in the UDP 

Final Rule that these evidentiary 

hearing procedures were consistent with 

section 41712, which requires the 

Department to provide notice and an 

opportunity for a hearing before finding 

that a regulated entity is engaged in an 

unfair or deceptive practice.19 The 

Department noted that hearing 

procedures would be helpful in cases 

where the Department’s proposed 

rulemaking may be premised on 

complex or disputed issues of fact.20

The Department also noted that the 

traditional notice-and-comment 

procedures of the Administrative 

Procedure Act ‘‘remain the default 

process,’’ and that a hearing may be 

granted only if an interested party 

shows that traditional notice-andcomment is inadequate.21 The 

Department further noted that the 

General Counsel may deny a hearing 

upon a finding that the hearing would 

unreasonably delay the rulemaking.22

The Department also explained that the 

Department had held evidentiary 

hearings on proposed aviation consumer 

protection rulemakings in the past, but 

had not codified nor fully publicized 

those procedures.23 In summary, the 

Department recognized that hearing 

procedures may add time to the overall 

rulemaking process, but concluded that 

the hearing procedures, as written, 

would ‘‘promote fairness, due process, 

and well-informed rulemaking, without 

unduly delaying the proceeding 

itself.’’ 24

C. Subsequent Developments on 

Evidentiary Hearing Procedures 

Recently, both the Department and 

the FTC have reexamined or revised 

their evidentiary hearing procedures for 

rulemakings. On April 2, 2021, the 

Department repealed most of 49 CFR 

part 5, which included hearing 

procedures for high-impact and 

economically significant rules issued by 

the Department.25 The Department 

further indicated that it would review 

the substance of the Department’s 

rulemaking procedures in light of 

Executive Order 13992 (January 25, 

2021). This Executive Order not only 

repealed a number of executive orders 

relating to the rulemaking process, but 

also directed agencies to ‘‘promptly take 

steps to rescind any orders, rules, 

regulations, guidelines, or policies, or 

portions thereof, implementing or 

enforcing’’ those repealed executive 

orders. 

Meanwhile, on July 22, 2021, the FTC 

announced that it streamlined its rules 

of practice regarding evidentiary 

hearings for rulemakings that would 

declare a specific act or practice to be 

unfair or deceptive.26 For example, the 

FTC eliminated the requirement that the 

evidentiary hearing be conducted by an 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ); 

instead, hearings may be conducted by 

a neutral presiding officer appointed by 

the FTC Chair.27 The FTC also 

eliminated other rules, including: (1) A 

requirement that the hearings include 

‘‘direct examination’’ of individuals 

who present their views at such hearing; 

(2) rules relating to compelling 

documents and testimony; and (3) a 

requirement that Commission staff 

produce a report analyzing the 

rulemaking record, along with an 

additional period for interested parties 

to comment on the report.28 The FTC 

reasoned that its amendments would 

allow for transparent public 

participation in the rulemaking process 

while avoiding unnecessary procedural 

delays to effective rulemaking.29


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5657 

30 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(iii). 

II. Discussion of Revisions To Rule on 

Evidentiary Hearings 

The Department maintains the view 

that it remains useful to have specified 

procedures for evidentiary hearings 

because it may be beneficial to hold 

evidentiary hearings before completing 

certain discretionary aviation consumer 

protection rulemakings. When 

structured properly and used 

judiciously, evidentiary hearings should 

help to ensure that the Department’s 

assumptions relating to economic, 

technical, and other matters are based 

on a solid foundation. The Department 

also sees value in publicizing and 

standardizing the procedures for 

evidentiary hearings, given that the 

Department’s use of such hearings is not 

new. With publicly available standards, 

evidentiary hearings should serve to 

promote robust public participation in 

the rulemaking process by all 

stakeholders. At the same time, the 

Department finds that it is important to 

balance the need for robust public 

participation with the need for 

procedures that provide the Department 

with enough flexibility to ensure 

important rulemakings are not bogged 

down by overly prescriptive procedural 

constraints. Accordingly, the 

Department has modified its evidentiary 

hearing procedures to promote 

flexibility and efficiency. 

First, the Department has simplified 

the standard for granting a hearing to a 

‘‘public interest’’ standard. The question 

of whether a hearing is in the public 

interest will turn on a number of factors, 

including but not limited to the novelty 

and complexity of the issues, the degree 

to which a public hearing would 

illuminate those issues beyond what 

could be accomplished in the noticeand-comment process, and the degree to 

which a public hearing would delay the 

underlying proceedings. The public 

interest standard is designed to 

encourage the General Counsel to 

consider not only the elements outlined 

in the UDP Final Rule, but also any 

other unique factors that may be 

relevant to the specific rulemaking at 

issue. 

The Department has also amended the 

level of proof necessary for the grant of 

a public hearing from a ‘‘plausible’’ 

standard to a ‘‘credible and convincing’’ 

standard; the petitioner would be 

required to make a ‘‘credible and 

convincing prima facie showing that 

granting the petition is in the public 

interest.’’ The Department is of the view 

that the ‘‘credible and convincing 

evidence’’ standard best serves to ensure 

that the usual notice-and-comment 

procedure of the APA remains the 

default procedure. The new standard 

also ensures that the petitioner presents 

a strong basis from which the General 

Counsel may conclude that expending 

the resources required for a public 

hearing is justified. 

The Department has also modified its 

procedures for granting or denying an 

evidentiary hearing. Under the UDP 

Final Rule, the General Counsel was 

required to issue a detailed statement of 

reasons for denying a petition, but there 

was no similar requirement if the 

General Counsel granted the petition. 

The Department is of the view that the 

General Counsel should issue an 

explanatory statement of the basis for 

the decision in either granting or 

denying the petition. However, the 

statement need not be overly detailed; it 

should set forth with sufficient clarity 

the basis for the decision that it is or is 

not in the public interest to hold an 

evidentiary hearing. Such a requirement 

will promote fairness and transparency 

in the Department’s rulemaking 

processes. 

The Department has also afforded the 

General Counsel greater discretion to 

appoint an appropriate hearing officer 

for the evidentiary hearing. The UDP 

Rule currently requires the General 

Counsel to appoint a ‘‘neutral officer’’ to 

preside over the hearing, implying that 

Department staff working on the 

rulemaking may not preside over the 

hearing. Under this new rule, the 

General Counsel has broader discretion 

to appoint an appropriate hearing officer 

from within or outside the Department 

to conduct the hearing. 

Next, the Department now allows the 

hearing officer greater flexibility with 

respect to when and how testimony is 

presented at the hearing. The UDP Final 

Rule required ‘‘a reasonable opportunity 

to participate in the hearing through the 

presentation of testimony and written 

submissions’’ and ‘‘a reasonable 

opportunity to question the presenters.’’ 

The new rule eliminates these 

requirements and allows the hearing 

officer greater discretion to determine 

whether testimony, written 

submissions, and/or cross-examination 

are appropriate given the unique 

circumstances of each hearing. 

The Department has simplified the 

requirements for the hearing officer’s 

report after the hearing is closed. The 

UDP Final Rule provided that, after the 

record of the hearing is closed, ‘‘the 

hearing officer shall place on the docket 

minutes of the hearing with sufficient 

detail as to fully reflect the evidence 

and arguments presented on the issues, 

along with proposed findings 

addressing the disputed issues of fact 

identified in the hearing notice.’’ 30 In 

this new rule, the hearing officer is 

simply required to place on the record 

the minutes with sufficient detail as to 

fully reflect the evidence and arguments 

presented on the issues and not the 

proposed findings addressing the 

disputed issues of fact identified in the 

hearing. The findings would be 

provided by the Department in 

subsequent documents that modify, 

terminate, or maintain the proposed 

rule. 

Finally, the Department has amended 

the procedures that take place after the 

hearing is closed. The new rule clarifies 

that in keeping with current practice, all 

interested parties (not just those who 

participated in the hearing) may file 

statements or comments in the docket 

after the hearing is closed. 

III. Administrative Procedure Act 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, the normal notice and comment 

procedures do not apply to an action 

that is a rule of agency organization, 

procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A). Since this final rule revises 

only internal processes applicable to the 

Department’s administrative 

procedures, this is a rule of agency 

procedure for which notice and 

comment are not required. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. 

The Department does not anticipate that 

this rulemaking, which amends the 

Department’s internal procedures, will 

have an economic impact on regulated 

entities. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Since notice and comment 

rulemaking is not necessary for this 

rule, the analytical provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96– 

354, 5 U.S.C. 601–612) do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to ensure meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5658 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

levels of government. This action has 

been analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999), 

and DOT has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect or federalism implications on the 

States and would not preempt any State 

law or regulation or affect the States’ 

ability to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. Therefore, 

consultation with the States is not 

necessary. 

D. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments.’’ 

Because this rulemaking does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

that DOT consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA 

section 3507(d), obtain approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. The DOT 

has determined there are no new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this final rule. 

F. National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed the 

environmental impacts of this action 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and has determined that it 

is categorically excluded pursuant to 

DOT Order 5610.1C, ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(44 FR 56420, October 1, 1979). 

Categorical exclusions are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing procedures that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an environmental 

assessment (EA) or environmental 

impact statement (EIS). Paragraph 4.c.6.i 

of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically 

excludes ‘‘[a]ctions relating to consumer 

protection, including regulations.’’ 

Since this rulemaking relates to the 

definition of unfair and deceptive 

practices under section 41712, the 

Department’s central consumer 

protection statute, this is a consumer 

protection rulemaking. The agency does 

not anticipate any environmental 

impacts, and there are no extraordinary 

circumstances present in connection 

with this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 399 

Consumer protection, Policies, 

Rulemaking proceedings, Enforcement, 

Unfair or deceptive practices. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of 

Transportation amends 14 CFR part 399 

as follows: 

PART 399—STATEMENTS OF 

GENERAL POLICY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 399 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712, 40113(a). 

■ 2. Section 399.75 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (7) 

and removing paragraph (b)(8). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 399.75 Rulemakings related to unfair and 

deceptive practices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Decision on petition for hearing. 

The petition shall be granted if the 

petitioner makes a clear and convincing 

showing that granting the petition is in 

the public interest. Factors in 

determining whether a petition is in the 

public interest include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) Whether the proposed rule 

depends on conclusions concerning one 

or more specific scientific, technical, 

economic, or other factual issues that 

are genuinely in dispute or that may not 

satisfy the requirements of the 

Information Quality Act; 

(ii) Whether the ordinary public 

comment process is unlikely to provide 

an adequate examination of the issues to 

permit a fully informed judgment; 

(iii) Whether the resolution of the 

disputed factual issues would likely 

have a material effect on the costs and 

benefits of the proposed rule; 

(iv) Whether the requested hearing 

would advance the consideration of the 

proposed rule and the General Counsel’s 

ability to make the rulemaking 

determinations required by this section; 

and 

(v) Whether the hearing would 

unreasonably delay completion of the 

rulemaking. 

(3) Explanation of decision. If a 

petition is granted or denied in whole 

or in part, the General Counsel shall 

provide an explanation of the basis for 

the decision, 

(4) Hearing notice. If the General 

Counsel grants the petition, the General 

Counsel shall publish notification of the 

hearing in the Federal Register. The 

document shall specify the proposed 

rule at issue and the specific factual 

issues to be considered at the hearing. 

The scope of the hearing shall be 

limited to the factual issues specified in 

the notice. 

(5) Hearing process. (i) A hearing 

under this section shall be conducted 

using procedures approved by the 

General Counsel, and interested parties 

shall have a reasonable opportunity to 

participate in the hearing. 

(ii) The General Counsel shall arrange 

for a hearing officer to preside over the 

hearing. 

(iii) After the hearing and after the 

record of the hearing is closed, the 

hearing officer shall place on the docket 

minutes of the hearing with sufficient 

detail as to fully reflect the evidence 

and arguments presented on the issues. 

The complete record of the hearing shall 

be made part of the rulemaking record. 

(iv) Interested parties shall be given 

an opportunity to file statements or 

comments after the hearing. 

(6) Actions following hearing. (i) 

Following the completion of the hearing 

process, the General Counsel shall 

consider the record of the hearing, and 

shall make a reasoned determination 

whether to terminate the rulemaking; to 

proceed with the rulemaking as 

proposed; or to modify the proposed 

rule. 

(ii) If the General Counsel decides to 

terminate the rulemaking, the General 

Counsel shall publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

decision and explaining the reasons for 

the decision. 

(iii) If the General Counsel decides to 

finalize the proposed rule without 

material modifications, the General 

Counsel shall explain the reasons for the 

decision and its responses to the hearing 

record in the preamble to the final rule. 

(iv) If the General Counsel decides to 

modify the proposed rule in material 

respects, the General Counsel shall 

publish a new or supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register explaining the General 

Counsel’s responses to and analysis of 

the hearing record, setting forth the 

modifications to the proposed rule, and 

providing additional reasonable 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed modified rule. 

(7) Interagency review process. The 

hearing procedures under this 

paragraph (b) shall not impede or 

interfere with the interagency review 

process of the Office of Information and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5659 

Regulatory Affairs for the proposed 

rulemaking. 

* * * * * 

Issued this 21st day of January, 2022, in 

Washington, DC, under authority delegated 

in 49 CFR 1.27(n). 

John E. Putnam, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01589 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 381 

[Docket No. RM22–4–000] 

Annual Update of Filing Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of 

Commission filing fees. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission issues this update of its 

filing fees. This document provides the 

yearly update using data in the 

Commission’s Financial System to 

calculate the new fees. The purpose of 

updating is to adjust the fees on the 

basis of the Commission’s costs for 

Fiscal Year 2021. 

DATES: Effective March 4, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maryam Khan, Office of the Executive 

Director, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 999 North Capitol St. NE, 

Room 22–02, Washington, DC 20426, 

202–502–6683. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Document Availability: In addition to 

publishing the full text of this document 

in the Federal Register, the Commission 

provides all interested persons an 

opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the 

internet through FERC’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, due to the proclamation 

declaring a National Emergency 

concerning the Novel Coronavirus 

Disease (COVID–19), issued by the 

President on March 13, 2020. 

From FERC’s website on the internet, 

this information is available in the 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field and follow other 

directions on the search page. 

User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and other aspects of FERC’s 

website during normal business hours. 

For assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support at FERCOnlineSupport@

ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or 

for TTY, contact (202) 502–8659. 

Annual Update of Filing Fees 

(January 24, 2022) 

The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) is issuing 

this document to update filing fees that 

the Commission assesses for specific 

services and benefits provided to 

identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18 

CFR 381.104, the Commission is 

establishing updated fees on the basis of 

the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2021 

costs. The adjusted fees announced in 

this document are effective March 4, 

2022. The Commission has determined, 

with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

that this final rule is not a major rule 

within the meaning of section 251 of 

Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). The Commission is submitting 

this final rule to both houses of the 

United States Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

The new fee schedule is as follows: 

Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act 

1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403) ........................................................................ $16,770 

Fees Applicable to General Activities 

1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) .................... 33,690 

2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order: 

Amount in controversy 

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ............................................................................................................................................ 100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ................................................................................................................................. 600 

$ 30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a)) ............................................................................................................................... 49,170 

3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment: 

Amount in controversy 

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ............................................................................................................................................ 100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ................................................................................................................................. 600 

$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a)) ................................................................................................................................ 25,780 

4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a)) .................................................................. 9,660 

Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines 

1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b)) .................................................................... * 1,000 

Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers 

1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ......................................................... 28,970 

2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ......................................................................... 32,790 

* This fee has not been changed. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1