Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 188 / Friday, October 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Current section 13.113
13.115
13.117
13.119
13.121
13.123
13.125
13.127
13.129
13.131
Subpart G:
13.201
13.202
13.203
13.204
13.205a19
13.205b
N/A
13.205c
13.206
13.207
13.208
13.209a
13.209b
13.209c
13.209d
13.209e
13.209f
13.210a
13.210b
13.210c
13.210d
13.210e
N/A
13.211a
13.211b
13.211c
13.211d
13.211e
13.211f
13.211g
13.211h
13.212
13.213
13.214
13.215
13.216
13.217
13.218
N/A
13.219
13.220
13.221
13.222
13.223
13.224
13.225
13.226
13.227
13.228
13.229
13.230
13.231
13.232a
13.232b
13.232c
13.232d
N/A
13.233
13.234
13.235
N/A

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Pub. L. 96354 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act Pub. L. 9639 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.
1044 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.
FAA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3f of Executive Order 12866, and is not significant as defined in DOTs Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities. It will not cause a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, as this project only concerns FAA. It would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof, as it does not impact on any of these things. It would not raise novel legal issues, as the amendments it makes are based on established law and precedent. Finally, this final rule complies with DOTs Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

New section 13.113.
13.115.
13.117.
13.119.
13.121.
13.123.
13.125.
13.127.
13.129.
13.131.
13.201.
13.202.
13.203.
13.204.
13.205a19.
13.205a10, b.
13.205a11.
13.205c.
13.206.
13.207.
13.208.
13.209a.
13.209ab, d, 13.210.
13.209c.
13.209d.
13.209e.
13.209f.
13.210a, b, c, g.
13.210d.
13.210e.
13.210f.
Removed.
13.210h.
13.211a.
13.211c.
13.211d.
13.211e.
13.211g.
13.211b.
13.211f.
13.211h.
13.212.
13.213.
13.214.
13.215.
13.216.
13.217.
13.218.
13.218f7.
13.219.
13.220.
13.221.
13.222.
13.223.
13.224.
13.225.
13.226.
13.227.
13.228.
13.229.
13.230.
13.231.
13.232a.
13.232b.
13.232c.
13.232e.
13.232d.
13.233.
13.234.
13.235.
13.236.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:45 Sep 30, 2021

Jkt 256001

A. Regulatory Evaluation This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAAs analysis of the economic impacts of this rule. This rule amends FAAs investigative and enforcement procedures to update position title references and reflect organizational changes in the Office of the Chief Counsel, updates outdated statutory and regulatory references, updates outdated addresses, and provides uniformity across part 13. The rule also reorganizes and rewords existing provisions to eliminate
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

54523

inconsistencies, clarify ambiguity, increase efficiency, and improve readability. These changes will ensure that the public has current information and rule language that is easier to understand. The cost of these changes is minimal.
This final rule also provides the option for an expedited administrative process to subjects of emergency orders to which 13.20 applies. Currently, part 13 does not provide for an expedited administrative process for the subjects of such orders. The only recourse for litigating such an order is a direct appeal under 49 U.S.C. 46110 to a U.S.
court of appeals, which can be costly and slow. This final rule adds the option of an expedited administrative hearing before a hearing officer followed by an expedited administrative appeal to the Administrator. The expedited process is consistent with existing processes for issuing other types of emergency orders and notices of proposed actions. Also, expedited subpart D proceedings are not new, as current subpart E uses subpart D
procedures for appeals of hazardous materials emergency orders of compliance issued under current 13.81a. Because the new expedited procedures process is similar to existing processes, the costs stemming from the new process will be minimal. Finally, parties could appeal an order issued after exhaustion of the expedited administrative process to a U.S. court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. 46110.
The expedited administrative process may also lead to an efficient resolution of the matter without an appeal to a U.S.
court of appeals. This could result in avoided initial filing fees. An appeal to a U.S. court of appeals requires an initial $500 filing fee 20 versus no initial filing fee in the expedited administrative process. Expedited administrative proceedings could reduce time and costs for affected parties compared to an appeal to a U.S.
court of appeals. Potential cost savings might result because of net savings in attorneys fees, i.e., the difference in cost of hiring an attorney for a potentially lengthy U.S. court of appeals case versus the expedited administrative process. In addition, the expedited administrative process could resolve the matter in a far shorter time than a U.S.
court of appeals, as the Administrator must issue the final order in the expedited administrative process within 80 days. U.S. court of appeals cases, on the other hand, could result in protracted litigation costs. Additionally, 20 https www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/
court-appeals-miscellaneous-fee-schedule.

E:FRFM01OCR2.SGM

01OCR2