In conclusion, the United States Supreme Court, while acknowledging that any could mean different things, it is generally to be taken as a broad sweep of the category, unless context indicates otherwise. Furthermore, context indicates that sub-section (b) and (c) both look at (a) as providing something special that unmanned aircraft (non-model and public aircraft) do not get. Good Cause Bypass Exception to the Administrative Procedures Act Requirements 5 U.S.C. § 553 says, (b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include— (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply— (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or (B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 14 CFR § 11.11 echoes, A final rule with request for comment is a rule that the FAA issues in final (with an effective date) that invites public comment on the rule. We usually do this when we have not first issued a [proposed rule] . . . , because we have found that doing so would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We give our reasons for our determination in the preamble. The comment period often ends after the effective date of the rule. A final rule not preceded by an [proposed rule] is commonly called an ‘immediately adopted final rule.’ So unless the proposed regulation falls into the good cause bypass exception, it has to go through the rule making process required by Congress. It is ubiquitously called “notice and comment.” To make it simple, unless bypassed, the FAA must publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the public is given an opportunity to comment on it, the FAA must digests the comments and then publish a final rule. There are many steps involved that are beyond the scope of this article, but if you want more info, I wrote a chapter on the FAA rule making process for the American Bar Association book located here. The green arrow is where Part 48 was with the registration task force’s proposal on November 21, 2015. The blue arrow is where the current Part 107 commercial rule is located that was started back in 2009 and was only just published in February of 2015. The red arrow is where the current registration rule, Part 48, is located in the rule making process. It bypassed all that stuff in the middle. The FAA can only do this if it can show that going the notice and comment route is either “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The FAA acknowledges the comments of individuals saying this violates the APA in pages 156-159 and points us back to the preamble (page 11) of the document. The FAA’s justifications for the good cause exception were not completely clear on which of the three justifications categories they fall into so I attempted to categorize them from pages 11-20. I was unclear as to where most of the “impracticable” justifications should go and made a good faith effort to represent the FAA’s position accurately because I’m assuming they didn’t throw in nonexception factual justifications. • Impracticable • “Immediate proliferation of new small unmanned aircraft that will be introduced into the NAS in the weeks ahead.”[15] • The Registration Branch can’t handle the influx of Part 47 registrations soon to come in by the FAA now requiring all drones over 250 grams to be registered prior to operation. [16] • Part 47 registration was not designed for drones.[17] • Part 47 registration will cost the FAA 775 million over the next 5 years.[18] • Waiting longer for the notice and comment is impracticable.[19] • Unnecessary • Drones are already considered aircraft and all aircraft are required to be registered.[20] • Congress has directed the FAA to ensure safety of aircraft and airspace.[21] • No one would object because it “relieves a significant number of owners from the burden of complying with the paper-based, time-consuming part 47 registration process.”[22]