Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/12/2013-22130/rules-of-practice-for-federally-assisted-airport-enforcement-proceedings-retrospective-regulatory
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:54:30
Document Index: 563696414

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', 'art 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'art 13', 'art 16', 'art 13', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 9', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', 'ART 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art.\n3', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'arts 23', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16']

Federal Register | Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (Retrospective Regulatory Review)
Dates: Effective November 12, 2013.
-56148 (14 pages)
Document Number: 2013-22130
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-22130 Related Topics
Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (RRR) 6 actions from March 5th, 2012 to August 2013
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)
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)
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 sponsors 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.
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.
In addition, the FAA has determined it will be helpful to clarify existing language in Part 16 that addresses
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.
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.
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.
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 distinguish 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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the FAA's order on June 12, 2012.
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.
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 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.”
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 process. 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 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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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 Associate 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
§ 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.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (96) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (96) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
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 this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (96), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (103), 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.
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. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312d of the Order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 16 Back to Top
PART 16—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FEDERALLY-ASSISTED AIRPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS Back to Top
1.The authority citation for part 16 is revised to read as follows: Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 322, 1110, 1111, 1115, 1116, 1718(a) and (b), 1719, 1723, 1726, 1727, 40103(e), 40113, 40116, 44502(b), 46101, 46104, 46110, 47104, 47106(e), 47107, 47108, 47111(d), 47122, 47123-47125, 47133, 47151-47153, 48103.
2.Amend § 16.1 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(3) through (6) to read as follows: § 16.1 Applicability and description of part.
3.Amend § 16.3 as follows: a. Remove the definitions of Director's determination, File, and Final decision and order;
b. Revise the definitions of Agency employee, Associate Administrator, Complaint, Director, Hearing officer, Mail, and Personal delivery; and
c. Add definitions for Administrator, Agency, Decisional employee, Electronic filing, Ex parte communication, and Writing or written in alphabetical order.
4.Amend § 16.11 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text, and adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 16.11 General processes.
(d) The Director may transfer to the FAA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights or Office of Civil Rights designee the authority to prepare and issue Director's Determinations pursuant to § 16.31 for complaints alleging violations of section 505(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, and the requirements concerning civil rights and/or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) issues contained in 49 U.S.C. 47107(e) and 49 U.S.C. 47113; 49 U.S.C. 47123; 49 U.S.C. 322, as amended; 49 CFR parts 23 and/or 26; and/or grant assurance 30 and/or grant assurance 37.
5.Amend § 16.13 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: § 16.13 Filing of documents.
(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).
6.Amend § 16.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1) and (d)(2), and adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: § 16.15 Service of documents on the parties and the agency.
(1) When acknowledgment of receipt is by a person who customarily or in the ordinary course of business receives mail at the address of the party or of the person designated under § 16.13(f);
7.Amend § 16.17 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 16.17 Computation of time.
8.Amend § 16.19 by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: § 16.19 Motions.
(e) Extension by motion. A party shall file a written motion for an extension of time not later than 3 business days before the document is due unless good cause for the late filing is shown. A party filing a motion for extension should attempt to obtain the concurrence of the opposing party. A party filing a written motion for an extension of time shall file the motion as required under § 16.13, and serve a copy of the motion on all parties and the docket clerk as required under § 16.15.
9.Revise § 16.21 to read as follows: § 16.21 Pre-complaint resolution.
10.Amend § 16.23 by revising the section heading; revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (b)(4), (c), (d), and (j); and adding paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows: § 16.23 Pleadings.
11.Revise § 16.25 to read as follows: § 16.25 Dismissals.
(a) Within 20 days after the receipt of the complaint, unless a motion has been filed under § 16.26, the Director will dismiss a complaint, or any claim made in a complaint, with prejudice if:
(1) It appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the Administrator under the Acts listed in § 16.1;
(3) The complainant lacks standing to file a complaint under §§ 16.3 and 16.23.
12.Add § 16.26 to read as follows: § 16.26 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.
13.Revise § 16.27 to read as follows: § 16.27 Incomplete complaints.
(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.
14.In § 16.29, revise the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: § 16.29 Investigations.
15.Revise § 16.31 to read as follows: § 16.31 Director's Determinations after investigations.
(a) After consideration of the pleadings and other information obtained by the FAA after investigation, the Director will render an initial determination and serve it upon each party within 120 days of the date the last pleading specified in § 16.23 was due.
(c) A party adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination as provided in § 16.33. However, if the Director's Determination that is appealed contains a Corrective Action Plan, the Director has the discretion to suspend the Corrective Action Plan until the appeal is resolved.
16.Revise § 16.33 to read as follows: § 16.33 Final decisions without hearing.
(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 Consent orders.
(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.
§ 16.105 [Amended]
18.Amend § 16.105 by removing “determination” and adding “Determination” in its place. 19.Revise § 16.109 to read as follows: § 16.109 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.
(1) Within 20 days after service of a Director's Determination under § 16.31 that provides an opportunity for a hearing a person subject to the proposed compliance order may—
(ii) Waive hearing and appeal the Director's Determination in writing, as provided in § 16.33;
(iv) Submit, jointly with the agency, a proposed consent order under § 16.34(c).
20.Amend § 16.201 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 16.201 Notice and order of hearing.
21.Amend § 16.203 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(2) to read as follows: § 16.203 Appearances, parties, and rights of parties.
22.Revise § 16.207 to read as follows: § 16.207 Intervention and other participation.
(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. 23.In § 16.211, revise the last sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 16.211 Prehearing conference.
24.Amend § 16.215 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 16.215 Depositions.
25.Revise § 16.227 to read as follows: § 16.227 Standard of proof.
26.Amend § 16.229 by adding introductory text to read as follows: § 16.229 Burden of proof.
27.Revise § 16.233 to read as follows: § 16.233 Record.
28.Amend § 16.235 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 16.235 Argument before the hearing officer.
§§ 16.241 and 16.243 [Transferred to Subpart F]
29.Sections 16.241 and 16.243 are transferred from subpart G to subpart F. Subpart G—[Removed and Reserved] Back to Top
30.Remove and reserve subpart G. 31.Amend § 16.241 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and removing paragraph (f). The revisions read as follows:
32.Add § 16.245 to subpart F to read as follows: § 16.245 Associate Administrator review after a hearing.
Subparts H and I [Redesignated as Subparts G and H] Back to Top
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 Judicial review of a final decision and order.
(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).
§ 16.301 [Removed]
35.Remove § 16.301 from newly redesignated subpart H. §§ 16.303, 16.305, and 16.307 [Redesignated as §§ 16.301, 16.303, and 16.305]
36.In newly redesignated subpart H, redesignate §§ 16.303, 16.305, and 16.307 as §§ 16.301, 16.303, and 16.305, respectively. end regulatory text