Governing Authority We are going to look at case law where applicable that will explain the good cause exception from 5 U.S.C. 553 and we will also look to the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part II, which “applies to the issuance, amendment, and repeal of any regulation for which FAA (“we”) follows public rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553).”[30] This is an excerpt from my American Bar Association book chapter on FAA rule making which deals specifically with these areas. Keep in mind I’m not going through the footnotes and trying to correct all the supra’s. Airworthiness Directives are subject to the rulemaking process as described elsewhere in this chapter. The FAA has an Airworthiness Directives Manual[31] which explains these three good cause exceptions that will now be discussed. 1. When Notice and Comment is Impracticable “This exception can be used when an urgent and unsafe condition exists that must be addressed quickly, and there is not enough time to carry out Notice and Comment procedures without compromising safety.”[32] The manual goes on to say the urgency must be explained and the time to give individuals to comply with the AD must reflect the urgency.[33] “For example, it would make little sense to say immediate action is necessary to prevent a landing gear failure and then allow 60 days compliance time to resolve the unsafe condition.[34] Also, the AD should be issued quickly to be consistent with the determination of ‘impracticability.’”[35] In Air Transport Association of America vs. the Department of Transportation,[36] the FAA’s penalty enforcement action was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court because: [T]he FAA is foreclosed from relying on the good cause exception[, from the APA,] by its own delay in promulgating the Penalty Rules. The agency waited almost nine months before taking action to implement its authority under section 1475. At oral argument, counsel for the FAA conceded that the delay was largely a product of the agency’s decision to attend to other obligations. We are hardly in a position to second guess the FAA’s choices in determining institutional priorities. But insofar as the FAA’s own failure to act materially contributed to its perceived deadline pressure, the agency cannot now invoke the need for expeditious action as “good cause” to avoid the obligations of section 553(b). [37] 2. When Notice and Comment Is Unnecessary This type of direct final rule is in effect a “final rule with request for comments. [The FAA’s] reason for issuing [this type of] direct final rule without an NPRM is that [the FAA] would not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so an NPRM is unnecessary.”[38] The FAA plans “the comment period to end before the effective date” so if there are any adverse comments, it can withdraw the final rule and issue an NPRM.[39] If the FAA publishes a rule, but a legitimate adverse comment comes up, the FAA will publish in the Federal Register a notification of withdrawal, part or whole, of the previous direct final rule.[40] The FAA can then either publish a new direct final rule with the comments taken into account or publish a NPRM.[41] Other unnecessary situation are when: (1) no one in the U.S. would be affected by the regulation and (2) the FAA makes “minor corrections, clarifications, and editorial changes.”[42] 3. When Notice and Comment Is Contrary To the Public Interest Generally, this exception is coupled with either the impracticable or unnecessary exception. This exception’s purpose “is to excuse an agency from the Notice requirement if providing advance Notice would defeat the purpose of the agency action. For example, issuing advance Notice that the government is contemplating financial controls could cause public reactions so excessive that the financial system could be placed in jeopardy.”[43] The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for DC said, Generally, the “good cause” exception to notice and comment rulemaking, see 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (3)(B), is to be “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 969 F.2d 1141, 1144 (D.C.Cir.1992) (quoting New Jersey v. EPA, 626 F.2d 1038, 1045 (D.C.Cir.1980)). The exception excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C.Cir.1981), or where delay could result in serious harm. See Hawaii Helicopter Operators Ass’n v. FAA, 51 F.3d 212, 214 (9th Cir.1995).[44] Simply put, impracticable means you have no time (emergency), unnecessary means uncontested, and contrary to public interest is where the public would be harmed rather than benefited by the publication of the rule. In light of the above, I will address the factual justifications for the bypass point by point.