Rule2022-01589
Procedures in Regulating Unfair or Deceptive Practices
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 2, 2022
Effective
March 4, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation Department
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5655-5659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01589]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5655]]
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); <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01736e636473752f666e736c606f41656e752f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64160b060116104a030b1609050a24000b104a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c5755515e594e5045125b4e5d5e594e7c585348125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="32595b5f5057405e4b1c55405350574072565d461c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bddfd1dcd3d893cad2cfd6d4d8fdd9d2c993dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="16747a777873386179647d7f735672796238717960">[email protected]</span></a> (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 14 CFR 399.79(b); 85 FR 78708.
\6\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 5656]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 14 CFR 399.75(b)(7).
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-and-comment 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 85 FR 78711.
\20\ Id. at 78712.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5657]]
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 notice-and-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 5658]]
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712, 40113(a).
0
2. Section 399.75 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (7)
and removing paragraph (b)(8).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 2, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.