Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/09/12/2013-22130/rules-of-practice-for-federally-assisted-airport-enforcement-proceedings-retrospective-regulatory
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 02:28:15
Document Index: 235003845

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 26', 'art 26', '§\u200926', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 13', 'art 16', 'art 13', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 9', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916']

Effective November 12, 2013.
56135-56148 (14 pages)
Amendment No. 16-1
A. Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Judgment (§§ 16.25 and 16.26)
B. Method of Filing (§§ 16.13 and 16.17)
C. Complaints Related to Civil Rights and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Filed Under 49 CFR 26.105(c) (§§ 16.3 and 16.21)
D. Oral Argument Before the Associate Administrator and Availability of a Hearing (§§ 16.33 and 16.241)
E. Timing of Pleadings, Director's Determinations, and Final Agency Decisions
F. Burden of Proof Versus Burden of Persuasion (§ 16.23)
G. Form of Complaints and Other Pleadings (§§ 16.23 and 16.3)
H. Content of Pleadings (§§ 16.23 and 16.3)
I. Processes Involving the Director (§§ 16.31 and 16.109)
J. Deposition of FAA Employees (§ 16.215(e))
K. Third Party Participation in Part 16 Hearings (§ 16.207)
L. Miscellaneous Issues (§§ 16.13, 16.17, 16.19, 16.26, 16.33, 16.109, 16.111, and 16.245)
Subparts H and I [Redesignated as Subparts G and H]
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-22130 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-22130
This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 09/11/2013 at 8:45 am.
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 Start Printed Page 56136sponsors for violation of federal obligations. For this final rule, a sponsor is a recipient of federal assistance, usually an airport operator. This final rule improves the efficiency of Part 16 proceedings by providing an electronic filing alternative, opportunities for sponsors to seek early disposition of complaints in certain cases, and clarification of processes already described in the rule. It affects those parties involved in filing and responding to formal complaints. It also affects the FAA offices involved in investigating and adjudicating those complaints.
The FAA, sponsors, aeronautical users, and other stakeholders have 17 years of experience with Part 16 as implemented in 1996.[1] In general, Part 16 has been a useful process for resolving complaints regarding sponsor compliance. The FAA does not intend to change the basic features of the process. Rather, the FAA has identified updates to Part 16 that could improve the process and reduce time required to address certain cases, based on agency and stakeholder lessons learned.
The FAA has determined that the agency, sponsors, aeronautical users, and other stakeholders in Part 16 proceedings will benefit from adding the following to the rule:
In addition, the FAA has determined it will be helpful to clarify existing language in Part 16 that addresses [2] —
Finally, the FAA is making minor updates to terminology and organization within Part 16 as part of its revision. These changes streamline the rule and reflect current practices.
The FAA expects benefits of these changes to include a decrease in both time spent and volume of paper documents required to process Part 16 complaints.
Part 16 has not been updated since its original implementation in 1996. As described earlier in this preamble and in the NPRM, existing Part 16 processes have worked well but are in need of revision based on agency and stakeholder experience during the past 15 years. The FAA is adding new processes and revising existing processes to clarify Part 16 and apply lessons learned to provide for more efficient use of agency and stakeholder time and resources during complaint proceedings.
The FAA proposed to update, simplify, and streamline rules of practice and procedure for filing and adjudicating complaints against federally-assisted airports found in 14 CFR part 16 (Part 16) with an NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2012.[3] The NPRM provided a 60-day period for the public to file comments on the proposal.
On May 17, 2012, the FAA re-opened the comment period with a Notice published in the Federal Register in response to a request from the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), an association representing the local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate the principal airports served by scheduled air carriers in North America.[4] ACI-NA sought additional time to complete its review and coordinate comments received from members that would be impacted by the proposed changes. The re-opened comment period closed on June 7, 2012.[5]
The FAA received five comments. Two groups representing airports (the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) provided supportive comments with suggestions to improve the rule, as did the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. All three of these commenters have experience with responding to complaints filed under Part 16. In addition, an individual who represents complainants in Part 16 complaints also indicated support while offering specific suggestions. One private citizen commented as well, indicating general support for the FAA's effort to revise and streamline the rule.
Commenters raised eleven issues regarding the proposal, from concerns and suggestions to improve new options for motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment to minor editorial corrections.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and ACI-NA commented on the new options for motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment proposed in §§ 16.25 and 16.26. ACI-NA encouraged the FAA to carefully scrutinize complaints and not docket complaints in accordance with § 16.25 that fall outside of the FAA's jurisdiction, fail to state a claim that warrants investigation, or where the complainant lacks standing. ACI-NA then pointed out that the new provisions for motions are meant to reduce paperwork for respondents and the FAA, and not increase it by requiring respondents to submit motions to dismiss in response to complaints that should not have been docketed in the first place. ACI-NA indicated that the FAA should “be more vigilant” in assessing complaints at the docketing stage. Finally, ACI-NA pointed out that as proposed in the NPRM, § 16.26 draws no distinction between motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Since there are differences between the two motions, ACI-NA recommended that to avoid confusion, the FAA should Start Printed Page 56137distinguish between these dispositive motions in the rule and proposed specific language. ACI-NA also urged the FAA to distinguish between these two kinds of motions so that this rule would be consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ACI-NA suggested substituting the word “dockets” for the word “receives” in proposed § 16.26(a) for greater consistency with deadlines throughout the rule.
The Port Authority and ACI-NA expressed concern that these sections would require the filing of motions before the docketing of a complaint. The Port Authority further stated that the provisions of § 16.26 are not consistent with the stated intent of relieving respondents of unnecessary effort in drafting an answer and compiling supporting documents, and achieving consistency with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Port Authority indicated its concern that there is a possibility under the current proposal that a respondent might be required to file an answer prior to the FAA's determination on the motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. The Port Authority proposed that the FAA delete § 16.26(f) to make the rule consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which stay the time for filing and service of an answer during deliberations on the motion.
The Port Authority and ACI-NA also recommended that the rules for dispositive motions be located in a new § 16.28 since both §§ 16.25 and 16.27 address actions to be taken by the FAA before docketing a complaint.
The FAA continues to closely scrutinize incoming Part 16 complaints to make certain that they are in compliance with the rule. The FAA routinely returns Part 16 complaints prior to the official docketing (so that no answer is due from the respondent) when one or more requirements in the rule are not met. In a May 24, 2011 partial dismissal order, the FAA dismissed the city of New York as a party since it was not a “respondent” within the meaning of Part 16.[6] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the FAA's order on June 12, 2012.[7]
The FAA is aware of the fact that parties to a Part 16 proceeding often have differing levels of legal expertise and familiarity with the rule. The FAA also recognizes that some of those who file complaints under Part 16 do so pro se, that is, without the benefit of legal counsel. While the FAA closely scrutinizes complaints filed under Part 16, it will docket complaints that have any basis for filing under the rule. If a respondent feels that a complaint contains frivolous or extraneous issues, it can avail itself of the motions described in § 16.26. The FAA believes that these new provisions for motions will help to reduce paperwork for respondents and the agency.
The FAA agrees with ACI-NA's suggestion to more clearly differentiate between motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. The FAA is including the provisions on motions to dismiss under § 16.26(b). The FAA is including the provisions addressing motions for summary judgment under § 16.26(c). Sections 16.26(e) and 16.26(f), as proposed in the NPRM, are renumbered as §§ 16.26(b)(4) and (5) and 16.26(c)(4) and (5), respectively. Additionally, the FAA has restructured § 16.26(c) to streamline it. The FAA also has added language in renumbered § 16.26(c)(4) for clarification.
The FAA is modifying section headings, organization, and introductory language to make clear that motions to dismiss are addressed in § 16.26(b), and motions for summary judgment are addressed in § 16.26(c). As a result, motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment continue to have the same effect on filings, deadlines, and orders.
The FAA agrees with ACI-NA's suggestion to change § 16.26(a) by substituting language similar to that used in § 16.23(d). However, the FAA notes that § 16.23(d) requires an answer to be filed “within 20 days of the date of service of the FAA notification [of docketing].” This differs from ACI-NA's assertion in their comment that § 16.23(d) requires an answer to be filed within 20 days of the FAA docketing a complaint.
Two commenters recommended improvements to the provisions regarding electronic filing and postal submissions. AAAE encouraged the FAA to improve its technological capabilities so that parties might upload and access documents through an electronic docket.
The Port Authority noted that the term “post office address” (§ 16.13(f)) is no longer accurate. It also suggested that one day be added to a prescribed period for a right or requirement to perform an act after service of a document if the document is served by overnight express delivery.
The FAA partially agrees with these comments. The FAA believes that the changes proposed to § 16.13 in the NPRM address AAAE's interest in modernizing the filing process. Anyone may access all documents regarding a particular complaint via the electronic docket on http://www.regulations.gov. AAAE correctly stated that parties may not upload documents to regulations.gov. The FAA does not find it necessary for parties to be able to do so. Proposed § 16.13 gives parties an opportunity to email their pleadings to the Docket Clerk, who will then send the pleadings to the DOT Docket Staff for submission to http://www.regulations.gov.
The FAA agrees with the Port Authority's suggestion to replace the term “post office address” with the term “physical address” in § 16.13(f). However, the FAA finds it unnecessary to add a day to deadlines when parties choose overnight, express delivery.
The Port Authority questioned the proposal to permit someone who is not “directly and substantially affected” by a sponsor's alleged violations to file a Part 16 complaint. The Port Authority also objected to the exemption of persons filing complaints under 49 CFR 26.105(c) from good faith efforts at informal resolution required of other Part 16 complainants. ACI-NA expressed support for these comments by reference.
The FAA notes that the provisions of 49 CFR part 26 are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is governed by 49 CFR part 26. Under this regulation, complainants are not required to be directly and substantially affected by the sponsor's alleged violations and “[a]ny person who knows of a violation of this part by a recipient of FAA funds may file a complaint.” [8] Additionally, 49 CFR § 26.105 does not mandate informal dispute resolution before filing a complaint under Part 16.
Three commenters expressed confusion over the role of oral arguments and hearings in the Part 16 Start Printed Page 56138process. The Port Authority, and ACI-NA by reference, suggested allowing oral argument before the Associate Administrator on appeal from a Director's Determination in certain circumstances to provide assistance to the Associate Administrator. AAAE complained that it was unclear when a sponsor may request a hearing to appeal the Director's Determination and to challenge the Director's orders.
The FAA notes that oral argument for all complaints appealed to the Associate Administrator is not required by law. A hearing, with oral argument, is required for either withholding approval or payment of grants as stated in 49 U.S.C. 47106(d), 49 U.S.C. 47111, and 47114(c) and (e). Title 49 of the United States Code, 47114(d), does not require the FAA to provide a hearing for withholding discretionary grant funds from general aviation airports.
Moreover, the FAA believes that allowing oral argument for all appeals of Director's Determinations would cause undue delay. When not required by statute, the FAA finds oral argument unnecessary for a fair, just, and complete process.
ACI, AAAE, and a private citizen contended that the deadlines in the current rule are unrealistic and suggested extending them throughout the process. AAAE encouraged the FAA to do so while maintaining the expedited nature of the process. The private citizen made general suggestions for further revision of procedures.
The FAA did not propose changes to the timing for pleadings, Director's Determinations, or Final Agency Decisions in the NPRM because the existing process allows flexibility as needed for all parties involved. Therefore, any changes to the time periods for steps in the Part 16 complaint process are outside the scope of the NPRM.[9]
The FAA notes that deadlines for service of pleadings in §§ 16.19 and 16.23 are subject to parties' petitions for extension under current § 16.11. Parties are able to determine if they can meet the deadlines, and can request extensions if they feel more time is necessary to complete the process fairly.
The FAA's intent has been to make the Part 16 process both expedited and complete since it originally proposed the rule in 1994. The 1994 NPRM stated that a Director's Determination should be issued within six months of the FAA's receipt of a complaint, reflecting intent “to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related complaints” (in comparison to the 49 CFR part 13 process used prior to 1996).[10] Part 16 was also designed to ensure a final and complete resolution of disputes because the Part 13 process did “not provide a structure that regularly facilitates the final administrative disposition of airports-related cases within prescribed time limits.” [11]
The Port Authority noted that proposed § 16.23(k) does not distinguish the legal concept of burden of proof from that of burden of persuasion. The commenter suggested that proposed § 16.23(k) be separated out into a new § 16.24.
The FAA notes, in response, that the Parties entering the Part 16 process have varying levels of legal expertise and familiarity with the rule. While those with legal training likely understand the difference between burden of proof and burden of persuasion, others may not. Rather than adhering to the legal definitions of these terms, the FAA has chosen the term “burden of proof” to cover both concepts to make Part 16 more accessible to all participants. The FAA finds that since burden of proof applies to all pleadings, the provision addressing it is best left as proposed in § 16.23.
ACI-NA sought consistent application of the requirement that a complainant show “how the complainant was `directly and substantially affected'” by the respondent's actions, especially regarding ripeness. It also recommended more rigorous formatting requirements for complaints. The Port Authority suggested that all pleadings be submitted according to the standards established in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10.
The FAA must balance reliance on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with its obligation to provide a fair, just, and complete process to all parties. Many complainants and some respondents file without the benefit of general or specialized legal counsel. The FAA believes that adherence to strict formatting requirements for a Part 16 complaint would place an unnecessary burden on those parties.
Part 16 was designed with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in mind, but it was not intended to replicate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part 16 was designed for administrative adjudication that relies on flexibility.
Two commenters made suggestions regarding the content of pleadings received by the FAA during the Part 16 process. ACI-NA recommended that the FAA define “affirmative defense” in § 16.3 for clarity and restrict acceptance of supplemental pleadings to expedite the process. A private citizen suggested that the rules specify that a complainant may raise whatever issues and submit whatever documents it felt proper to respond to any matter raised in an answer, and that the FAA permit both parties to raise new issues at any time to ensure a full and fair Part 16 process.
The FAA notes that the term “affirmative defense,” while a legal term of art, is self-explanatory. The FAA finds it unnecessary to define this term in the Part 16 regulation. Various federal court decisions have relied upon the definition of “affirmative defense” in Black's Law Dictionary.[12]
The FAA has two concerns regarding the suggestion that complainants be able to bring new information to the Director prior to the issuance of the Director's Determination (i.e., during the investigatory phase). First, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to finalize the investigation and draft the decision document where new information was able to be routinely submitted to the docket. In a sense, the docket would never close in some cases, and investigations might have to be re-started leading to significant inefficiencies and delay.
Second, § 16.19 currently allows parties to submit motions at any time, and for the opposing party to respond. So, there is a mechanism in place now that would permit new information to be submitted if the complainant believed that it was necessary for the FAA to consider this information. This provision allows flexibility in supplementing the record with relevant information while allowing the Director to exercise discretion to expedite the process.
Concerning the suggestion that complainants should be able to bring new information to the attention of the Start Printed Page 56139Associate Administrator during the Director's Determination appeal process, the FAA notes that new § 16.33(f) expressly provides that new issues or evidence may be brought before the Associate Administrator if certain requirements are met. If a complainant were not able to meet these requirements, he or she would be free to file a new complaint to address the new information.
Concerning the suggestion that the FAA should state specifically that a complainant may raise any issue and submit any document necessary or desirable to respond to any denial or affirmative defense raised in the Answer, the FAA does believe that such clarification is necessary in the rule.
Three commenters were concerned with clarity of language and improper extension of the Director's authority. ACI-NA commented that the language in proposed § 16.109, addressing orders terminating grants, cease and desist orders, and compliance orders, is unclear in relation to that of § 16.31, addressing Director's Determinations after investigations. AAAE suggested that the proposed changes in the Director's authority exceed legal limits and fail to clearly describe what orders the Director could issue. The Port Authority proposed that a definition of “Corrective Action Plan” be added to § 16.3.
The FAA finds that neither the provisions in proposed §§ 16.31(c) nor 16.109(c) exceed the scope of the FAA's authority. Under 49 U.S.C. 47107(a-e), the FAA is required to seek specific commitments from sponsors before giving those sponsors grants. Other provisions, such as 49 U.S.C. 47111, give the FAA authority to withhold grants from sponsors when those conditions are not met. By requiring corrective action, the FAA helps the sponsor take steps necessary to retain grant eligibility. Orders to this effect are within the scope of the Director's authority. As stated in the NPRM, proposed §§ 16.31(c) and 16.109(c) allow both flexibility and finality in the process.[13]
The FAA also finds it beneficial to both the agency and respondents to leave “Corrective Action Plan” undefined. These plans for bringing an airport sponsor into compliance with its federal obligations are dependent on the specific facts of each Part 16 proceeding. Defining this term could limit the FAA's flexibility in ensuring sponsor compliance and a fair outcome for the parties.
The FAA has added language to § 16.34(a) and (c) to clarify the Director's authority to determine whether or not to issue a consent order where parties propose to dispose of a case through the issuance of that order.
AAAE objected to the breadth of the provision allowing parties to depose agency employees only with written permission of the Chief Counsel. It suggested adding an exception to this rule.
The FAA finds an exception is unnecessary. As proposed in the NPRM, § 16.215(e) is consistent with the provisions of 49 CFR part 9, Testimony of Employees of the Department and Production of Records in Legal Proceedings.
The Port Authority believes that participation in Part 16 proceedings should be limited to third parties whose interests are sufficient to give them standing equal to that of a complainant or respondent.
The FAA believes that new provisions on third party participation are sufficiently restrictive to prevent the involvement of uninterested third parties. The current rule does not limit third party participation to the hearing stage, nor does it require a written motion to intervene. Changes proposed in the NPRM further restrict third party participation. The FAA is changing these provisions while maintaining the discretion of the hearing officer to admit parties necessary to ensure a fair, just, and complete process.
Several commenters noted typographical errors, omissions, and inconsistencies throughout the proposed regulatory text.
The FAA is addressing the following typographical errors, omissions, and inconsistencies identified by commenters:
Removing “A facsimile neither constitutes an executed original nor one of the three copies required directly above” from § 16.13(c) (Port Authority and ACI);
Replacing reference to paragraph (a) in § 16.33(c) with a reference to paragraph (b) (ACI); and
Replacing “appeal” with “seek judicial review of” in § 16.245(d) for clarity and consistency with § 16.245(g) (Port Authority).
However, the FAA notes that the following suggested changes would not improve clarity, and is not implementing these recommendations:
§ 16.17(d)—The Port Authority noted that proposed § 16.17(d) contained confusing language and suggested changes;
§§ 16.19 (e) and 16.17—The Port Authority suggested repeating § 16.19(e) as § 16.17(e) to improve clarity;
§ 16.26(d)—The Port Authority (and ACI-NA by reference) suggested replacing the words “A reply to” with “a brief answering”;
§ 16.109—The Port Authority suggested moving § 16.109 (c)-(g) to § 16.111 (a)-(e); and
§ 16.245(e)—The Port Authority suggested adding new language.
DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for Start Printed Page 56140this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
The FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis handles complaints made against federally-assisted airports. Part 16 provides a process for investigating and adjudicating complaints against airport operators for violation of federal obligations. This final rule clarifies and improves the efficiency of the current part 16 regulations for adjudicating complaints on matters within the agency's authority. These changes will be cost-beneficial because they decrease time spent and volume of paper documents required to process part 16 complaints. The new electronic filing process available to the government, complainants, and respondents will produce resource savings. Additionally, allowing a respondent to file a motion to dismiss, or a motion for summary judgment, will also produce resource savings.
The expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requested comments regarding this determination in the NPRM. Because no comments were received on this determination, the FAA believes the expected outcome is correct. The FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Additionally, this action fulfills the principles of Executive Order 13563, specifically those relating to retrospective analyses of existing rules. This rule is being issued as a result of the reviews of existing regulations that the FAA periodically conducts. The FAA is streamlining its regulations to reflect changes in applicable law and regulations, and to apply lessons learned since the original rule was published in 1996.
As noted above, the proposed changes to Part 16 are cost-relieving. Accordingly, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA certified in the NPRM that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA requested comments regarding this determination in the NPRM. Specifically, the FAA requested comments on whether the proposed rule would create any specific compliance costs unique to small entities and requested any respondents to provide detailed economic analysis to support any cost claims. The FAA received no response to its request for comments.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule in the NPRM and determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore create no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. The FAA received no comments on this determination. Therefore, the FAA determines that this final rule will have only a domestic impact and therefore create no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a `significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. The NPRM found that the proposed rule did not contain such a mandate; and, therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act did not apply. The FAA received no comments on this finding. Therefore, the FAA finds that this final rule does not contain such a mandate; and, therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Start Printed Page 56141The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312d of the Order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
Decisional employee means the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Start Printed Page 56142Associate Administrator, Director, hearing officer, or other FAA employee who is or who may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding.
(h) Electronic filing. (1) The initial complaint may be served electronically Start Printed Page 56143upon the respondent only if the respondent has previously agreed with the complainant in writing to participate in electronic filing. Documents may be filed under this Part electronically by sending an email containing (an) attachment(s) of (a) PDF file(s) of the required pleading to the FAA Docket Clerk, and the person designated in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(4) By filing a pleading or document electronically as described in this section, a party waives the rights under this part for service by the opposing party and the FAA by methods other than email. If a party subsequently decides to “opt-out” of electronic filing, that party must so notify the FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk and the other party in writing, from which time the FAA and the parties will begin serving the opting-out party in accordance with §§ 16.13 and 16.15. This subsection only exempts the parties from the filing and service requirements in § 16.13(a) (with the exception that “Documents to be filed with a hearing officer shall be filed at the address and in the manner stated in the hearing order.”), the method of filing requirements in § 16.13(b), and the number of documents requirements in § 16.13(c).
(2) Determinations issued by the Director and Associate Administrator in Part 16 cases, indexes of decisions, contact information for the FAA Hearing Docket, the rules of practice, and other information are available on the FAA Office of Airports' Web site at: http://part16.airports.faa.gov/​index.cfm.
§ 16.17
Pre-complaint resolution.
(c) The certification required under paragraph (b) of this section, shall include a brief description of the party's efforts to obtain informal resolution but Start Printed Page 56144shall not include information on monetary or other settlement offers made but not agreed upon in writing by all parties. Such efforts to resolve informally should be relatively recent and be demonstrated by pertinent documentation. There is no required form or process for informal resolution, but in each case the requirements to resolve the matter informally must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
§ 16.25
12. Add § 16.26 to read as follows:
Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
(i) It appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the Administrator under the Acts listed in § 16.1;
(iii) The complainant lacks standing to file a complaint under §§ 16.3 and 16.23.
(5) If the Director does not act on the motion for summary judgment within Start Printed Page 5614530 days of the date an answer to a motion is due under this section, the respondent shall file an answer to the complaint within the next 20 days.
§ 16.27
(a) If a complaint is not dismissed pursuant to § 16.25, but is deficient as to one or more of the requirements set forth in § 16.21 or § 16.23(b), the Director will dismiss the complaint within 20 days after receiving it. Dismissal will be without prejudice to the refiling of the complaint after amendment to correct the deficiencies. The Director's dismissal will include the reasons for the dismissal.
§ 16.29
(2) Obtaining additional oral and documentary evidence by use of the agency's authority to compel production of such evidence under 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 46104, and 49 U.S.C. 47122. * * *
§ 16.31
§ 16.33
(c) In the cases described in paragraph (b) of this section, within 30 days after the date of service of the initial determination, a party adversely affected by the Director's Determination may file in accordance with § 16.13 and serve in accordance with § 16.15 a simultaneous Notice of Appeal and Brief.
17. Add § 16.34 to subpart C to read as follows:
§ 16.34
(a) The parties may agree at any time before the issuance of a final agency decision to dispose of the case by proposing a consent order. Good faith efforts to resolve a complaint through issuance of a consent order may continue throughout the administrative process. However, except as provided in § 16.11(a), such efforts may not serve as the basis for extensions of the times set forth in this part.
(c) If the parties agree to dispose of a case by issuance of a consent order Start Printed Page 56146before the FAA issues a Director's Determination, the proposal for a consent order is submitted jointly by the parties to the Director, together with a request to adopt the consent order and dismiss the case. The Director may issue the consent order as an order of the FAA and terminate the proceeding.
Orders terminating eligibility for grants, cease and desist orders, and other compliance orders.
(b) In a case in which the agency provides the opportunity for a hearing, the Director's Determination issued under § 16.31 will include a statement of the availability of a hearing under subpart F of this part.
(e) Participation under this section is at the discretion of the hearing officer, and no decision permitting participation shall be deemed to constitute an expression that the participant has such a substantial interest in the proceeding as would entitle it to judicial review of such decision.Start Printed Page 56147
§ 16.211
§ 16.215
§ 16.227
§ 16.229
§ 16.233
§ 16.235
§§ 16.241 and 16.243
[Transferred to Subpart F]
§ 16.241
Initial decisions, order, and appeals.
§ 16.245
Associate Administrator review after a hearing.
(2) For those violations that cannot be remedied through corrective action, the Start Printed Page 56148Director may initiate action to revoke and/or deny the respondent's applications for Airport Improvement Program grants issued under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c)-(e) and 47115.
33. Redesignate subpart H, consisting of § 16.247, and subpart I, consisting of §§ 16.301, 16.303, 16.305, and 16.307, as subparts G and H, respectively.
34. In § 16.247, revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 16.247
(4) A Director's Determination or an initial decision of a hearing officer becomes the final decision of the Associate Administrator because it was not appealed within the applicable time periods provided under §§ 16.33(c) and 16.241(b).
§§ 16.303, 16.305, and 16.307
[Redesignated as §§ 16.301, 16.303, and 16.305]
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 46101, 46104, and 47122 in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2013.
1. 61 FR 53998, October 16, 1996.
2. This list is one of general introductions. It is not intended to explain each issue in detail.
3. 77 FR 13027.
4. 77 FR 29250.
6. Paskar, et al. v. City of New York and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, FAA Docket No. 16-11-04.
7. Paskar and Friends of LaGuardia Airport v. FAA, No. 11-2720-ag, 478 Fed.Appx. 707.
8. 49 CFR 26.105(c).
9. 77 FR 13027, March 7, 2012.
10. 59 FR 29880, 29882, June 9, 1994.
11. ID. at 29881.
12. See Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed. 2009, See also, e.g., National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. City Savings FSB, 28 F.3d 376, 393 (3d Cir. 1994), and Starnes Family Office, LLC v. McCullar, 765 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1048 (W.D. Tenn., 2011).
13. 77 FR 13032.
[FR Doc. 2013-22130 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]