Airworthiness directives: Federal regulatory review,
[Federal Register: October 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56539-56541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc98-3]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Chapter I
[Docket No. 28910]
Review of Existing Rules
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Review of Existing Rules; disposition of comments.
SUMMARY: This document summarizes the comments the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received in response to the notice inviting participation in its 1997 review of regulations as part of the 3-year Regulatory Review Program. That notice requested the public to identify regulations it believes should be amended, simplified, or eliminated.
In addition, in response to a recommendation by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (Commission), the FAA requested that the public suggest which rules could be developed as performance-based rather than prescriptive and to suggest plain English language that could be used in writing the regulations. This document also summarizes the FAA's response to the comments and changes it intends to make in its regulatory program as a result of this review. A report of the individual comments and the FAA's disposition of those comments by subject is on file in the docket. A copy of this report may be obtained from the Office of Rulemaking using the contact information listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gerri Robinson, ARM-24, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Three-Year Regulatory Review Program
On May 15, 1997, by notice published in the Federal Register (62 FR 26894), the FAA initiated a regulatory review as part of its ongoing Regulatory Review Program, which prescribes that the FAA review existing regulations every 3 years. This action was based on the 1995 Strategic Plan and Presidential recommendation that the FAA perform regulatory reviews consistent with its statutory authority and public interest responsibilities. This review program originally was published for comment through a notice in Federal Register on August 24, 1995 (60 FR 44142), soliciting recommendations on the FAA's proposed method of obtaining and analyzing public comments. Comments in response to that notice were received addressing the 3-year review cycle and the method of concluding the review by publishing a summary and general disposition of comments and, where appropriate, indicating how the FAA's regulatory priorities will be adjusted. While some commenters recommended different cycle times, the public was supportive of the FAA's approach to using its regulatory resources wisely, while effectively identifying regulations in need of revision or elimination. All comments were reviewed and final guidelines were published in the Federal Register notice dated October 15, 1996 (61 FR 53610).
As a result of past regulatory reviews, the FAA recognizes that there is great value in obtaining public input and adjusting its agenda and priorities accordingly. The FAA's objective in conducting regulatory reviews is to identify any necessary changes to the FAA's regulatory agenda. The regulatory review effort promotes the FAA's objective to improve safety without imposing undue burdens on the public. The comments received in each subsequent review will assist the FAA in determining the direction of its regulatory efforts.
In the FAA's May 15, 1997, notice, the public was asked to identify three regulations, in priority order, that should be amended or eliminated. In addition, the FAA asked the public to identify unnecessary regulations that have a significant impact on small business entities. The comment period closed August 13, 1997.
Comments were received from 21 commenters. The commenters included the following: air carriers, individuals, pilots, rotorcraft operators, aviation trade associations, an airport authority, a parts manufacturer, a pilot school, a
[[Page 56540]]
civil aviation authority, and a labor union.
The 21 commenters submitted a total of 82 recommendations. Several parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) were addressed, including parts 21, 25, 43, 61, 91, 121, and 135; 14 CFR parts 91 and 135 received the majority of responses. Other comments addressed FAA Orders, advisory circulars (ACs), a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), and various statutes and FAA programs, such as the Harmonization Program, the Pilot Records Improvement Act, and the Air Carrier Standard Security Program.
The most common issue raised was minimum altitude and visibility requirements, including helicopter instrument flight rules (IFR) alternate airport and congested airspace minimums. Other issues discussed include the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)/FAA harmonization efforts; alternate airports, including procedures and fuel requirements; and appeals from emergency revocations of pilot certificates. Also, three commenters suggested that similar regulations for parts 91, 119, 121, and 135 be consolidated to avoid duplication and confusion.
Although no commenters specifically identified regulations that have a significant impact on small entities, one commenter indicated that she is a small business owner and is overwhelmed by certain regulations. The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) commented that its small business members also are burdened by unnecessary regulations, but did not identify specific regulations that should be amended or eliminated.
Each comment was examined carefully to determine if it is being addressed in current rulemaking activities or if it should be a candidate for future actions to amend, initiate, or eliminate rules. The FAA compared the issues addressed by the commenters to those being addressed by its current regulatory program and considered whether to adjust its regulatory priorities in accordance with its statutory authority and responsibilities.
The commenters addressed a variety of topics and provided many suggestions. Some suggestions eventually will result in the initiation of rulemaking action, and other suggestions will be included or considered in current rulemaking activities. The FAA will consider several comments for future rulemaking when resources permit. Each comment has been entered into a data base and will be reviewed then a rulemaking project addressing a particular issue is considered.
Issues That Will Be Considered for Rulemaking
The FAA did not identify any recommendations that required immediate rulemaking; however, several issues will be added to the FAA's regulatory program in the future for considerations as rule changes as resources permit. For instance, the adequacy of minimum fuel and weather minimum requirements will be considered for possible future rulemaking. Several recommendations were received from various commenters regarding these requirements, especially as they apply in determining alternate airports. Some aspects of these recommendations already are being considered by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
One commenter requested that the FAA establish a separate part 135 for rotorcraft operators. The suggestion is worthy of close consideration in the future, when resources permit. Other issues that will be considered for future rulemaking activities include consolidating the oxygen requirements for parts 91, 121, and 135; and revising language in 14 CFR part 150 for clarity. In addition, the FAA will consider developing further guidance on ``operational control'' for part 135 air carriers.
Issues Currently Being Addressed
Many of the issues addressed by commenters are being considered by the ARAC. Some of the issues include the following topics:
‹bullet› Rotorcraft: Alternate Airport and Special VFR Operations
‹bullet› Fuel requirements: Reserves for IFR and VFR flight
‹bullet› Alternate airport requirements
‹bullet› Maintenance
‹bullet› National parks, wilderness areas, and national forests restrictions
The FAA has several other ongoing regulatory and nonregulatory activities addressing issues similar to those mentioned by commenters, including--
‹bullet› Emergency revocation of a certificate,
‹bullet› Crewmember flight and duty time requirements, and
‹bullet› Enrollment requirements for flight schools.
In addition, the FAA is addressing policies and procedures regarding issues similar to those raised by commenters. For example--
‹bullet› One commenter raised two issues addressing the requirement for a flight attendant to have a ``direct view'' of the cabin area and seatback strength. The FAA currently is reviewing an AC to describe a means of compliance with the ``direct view'' requirement. The FAA also is discussing the capability of seatbacks to provide a sturdy handhold in a joint effort with the automotive engineer's SEAT committee.
‹bullet› One commenter recommended revisions to the Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation Program (ACSEP) process described in FAA Order 8100.70 and AC 21-39, The Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation Program. The FAA is considering changes to the ACSEP process through an initiative known as ACSEP/Certificate Management Resource Targeting.
‹bullet› Several commenters expressed support of and urged the FAA to continue its efforts in harmonizing rules, policies, and guidance materials of the JAA and FAA. Air carrier commenters primarily are concerned with foreign repair station issues. The FAA recognizes the impact of harmonization and is committed to continuing its efforts to realize harmonization of regulations between the FAA and JAA as to foreign repair stations.
Issues That May Be Addressed in the Future
The FAA received comments on issues it is considering for future action. One such issue is clarification of airport design requirements, specifically regarding conditions to extend an object-free zone (OFA). In response to these comments, the FAA is reviewing AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
Issues That Have Been Addressed
Some recommendations made by commenters already have been addressed and were adopted as final rules before the request for comments for the 1997 Review of Existing Rules was published. One commenter addressed single-engine IFR passenger-carrying operations, which will be allowed as a result of Amendment No. 135-70, published on August 6, 1997 (62 FR 42364), and effective May 4, 1998. Similarly, the FAA received several comments addressing various issues regarding training requirements. The FAA recently revised part 61 (April 4, 1997, 62 FR 16220) following a regulatory review that, among other things, addressed training issues. Overall, the FAA received wide general support in adopting the new part 61.
Issues That Will Not Be Addressed
In some cases, the FAA found that either the current rule was necessary or the recommendations did not address a safety concern. For example, some
[[Page 56541]]
commenters made recommendations to consolidate operating rules in parts 91, 121, and 135. The FAA does not agree with these recommendations. The operations conducted under each part are distinct enough to warrant separate rules, and the regulations provide levels of safety appropriate for each applicable operation.
Several suggestions were made to expand definitions and abbreviations. The FAA finds further definition is not needed. The glossary in 14 CFR part 1 fulfills its purpose of providing clarification of terms used in the regulations that are not self- explanatory or where the normal dictionary definition does not exist or does not apply.
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security Recommendations; Response to Public Comments
In addition to requesting public comments as a result of the FAA's Regulatory Review Program, in the Federal Register notice dated May 15, 1997, the FAA also requested that the public suggest ways in which the agency might simplify its regulations in response to recommendations from the Commission. In its final report to President Clinton, the Commission recommended that the FAA's regulations be ``* * *simplified and, as appropriate, rewritten as plain English, performance-based regulations.''
Thirteen comments addressing how to simplify the regulations were received in response to the notice and were forwarded to the appropriate program offices, which are performing an internal review of their regulations in accordance with the Commission's recommendations.
Conclusion
The FAA finds that reviewing public comments to Federal Aviation Regulations assists the FAA in assessing the effectiveness of its regulatory agenda and adjusting the agenda, if necessary. As a result of the 1997 Review of Existing Rules, the FAA identified several issues that it determined will be addressed in future rulemaking projects. In addition, the review offered the FAA a general understanding of the public's concerns regarding the regulations and guidance material. The public comments addressing the Commission's recommendations to simplify the Federal Aviation Regulations will be considered in conjunction with the agency's overall review of its existing and pending regulations in the future. The FAA intends to continue to request public comments to the Federal Aviation Regulations every 3 years to identify any necessary changes to the FAA's regulatory program.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 1998. Margaret Gilligan, Acting Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification.
[FR Doc. 98-28377Filed10-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
