[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17021]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 14, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Chapter 1

 

Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Regulatory review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document summarizes the major comments the FAA received 
in response to its notice requesting that the public identify 
regulations that it believes should be amended or eliminated to reduce 
undue regulatory burdens, consistent with the FAA's statutory safety, 
security, and other public interest responsibilities. The information 
is needed from the commenters to help the FAA respond to the 
Administration's direction to design regulations in the most effective 
manner to achieve their regulatory objective.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Chris Christie, Director, Office of 
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9677.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 10, 1994, the FAA published a 
request that the public identify regulations that it believes should be 
amended or eliminated to reduce undue regulatory burdens, if any, 
consistent with the FAA's statutory safety, security, and other public 
interest responsibilities. This notice responded to the recommendation 
of the 15-member National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
Airline Industry, the recommendations of the Vice President's National 
Performance Review, and DOT and FAA regulatory initiatives. The FAA 
also noted that it intends to use the responses to this request to 
facilitate the regulatory review I envisioned by Executive Order No. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (September 30, 1993). The 
order requires agencies periodically to review their existing 
significant regulations to determine whether any should be modified or 
eliminated to make the agency's regulatory program more effective and 
less burdensome.
    The FAA requested that commenters focus their recommendations on up 
to three regulations they believe to be of primary concern--rather than 
catalogue all rules that they may view to be objectionable in some 
respects. This request was made to facilitate the development of a 
manageable overall proposal. Commenters also were asked to rank in 
priority order the regulations that the commenters believed the agency 
should address first. In addition, each submission was to include an 
explanation of: (1) How the identified regulatory requirement is 
burdensome; (2) how the requirement should be changed or deleted, 
including, where possible, suggested draft substitutes; (3) how a 
regulatory change would benefit the public; and (4) how a proposed 
regulatory change would provide an adequate level of safety, security, 
or environmental protection. The FAA also noted that specific economic 
information to support a reliable cost/benefit analysis of the proposed 
change would be of assistance.
    The FAA received more than 400 comments from 184 commenters. The 
agency has completed its initial review of these comments and is 
considering each in the light of the agency's safety priorities. The 
appropriate FAA program office is preparing a response to each of these 
comments, and a comprehensive document containing the FAA's responses 
will be available to the public through an announcement in the Federal 
Register later this year.
    The commenters represented:

     Air carriers, including professional trade associations.
     Air taxi/commercial operators, including professional 
trade associations.
     General aviation, including professional trade 
associations.
     Rotorcraft, including professional trade associations.
     Manufacturers.
     State transportation agencies/airport authorities.
     Repair facilities.
     Aviation-related businesses.
     Flight schools.
     Public interest group.
     Intergovernmental organization.
     Aviation foundation.
     Union.
     Individiduals.
    Comments received addressed 40 parts of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (FAR), 4 FAA Orders, 7 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRMs), 4 sections of Chapter 49 of the U.S. Code, 5 Advisory 
Circulars, 2 Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR), the Airman's 
Information Manual, an Airworthiness Directive, an Action Notice, the 
Freedom of Information Act, and the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) System. 
The following Federal Aviation Regulations were addressed most 
frequently:

FAR Part

Part 11--General Rulemaking Procedures
Part 21--Certification Procedures for Products and Parts
Part 23--Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and 
Commuter Category Airplanes
Part 25--Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
Part 43--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and 
Alteration
Part 61--Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors
Part 91--General Operating and Flight Rules
Part 107--Airport Security
Part 121--Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and 
Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft
Part 135--Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operators
    Following are the primary segments of the public whose comments 
reflected common themes, and the main issues they addressed:

Air Carriers

     Aging Aircraft. Commenters stated that regulations that 
have been proposed by the FAA to require aircraft operators to ensure 
that airworthiness requirements applicable to older aircraft continue 
to be met should be withdrawn or modified prior to implementation, and 
that air carriers should be permitted to develop their own specific 
programs for dealing with corrosion. Some commenters stated that the 
FAA has over-utilized Airworthiness Directives (ADs) to implement the 
aging aircraft program, and that such programs have become unduly broad 
and burdensome.
     Airport security. Commenters stated that regulations that 
limit access to certain secure areas of airports have proven much more 
costly to air carriers than the FAA had forecasted, and should be 
modified and standardized.
     Drug testing. Industry commenters asserted that random 
drug testing should be reduced to 10 percent of employees per year, 
rather than the current 50 percent.
     Aircraft simulation. Commenters addressed various aspects 
of simulator training and recommended revising part 121, Appendix H, 
Advanced Simulation Plan, to take into account advances in simulator 
sophistication and capability.

Air Taxi and Commercial Operators

     Single-engine Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Commenters 
recommended eliminating the current prohibition of passenger-carrying 
operations in single-engine airplanes for compensation or hire under 
IFR conditions, particularly for turbine-powered aircraft.
     Weather reports and forecasts. Certain operators wanted 
more flexibility in evaluating weather conditions at destination 
airports prior to departure, and to expand the number of sources of 
approved weather reporting. The issue was raised by helicopter 
operators, including air ambulance services, as well as by other 
certificate holders.
     Maintenance. Certain operators stated that pilots who have 
appropriate training but who are not certificated mechanics should be 
permitted to perform certain maintenance functions such as the 
reconfiguration of aircraft seating.

General Aviation

     Medical certification requirements. Commenters supported 
eliminating or relaxing medical certificate requirements for pilots 
whose pilot certificates currently require a third-class medical 
certificate. One common recommendation was to extend the duration of a 
third-class medical certificate from 2 years to 4 years.
     Biennial flight review. Commenters made a number of 
recommendations to eliminate the requirement for the biennial flight 
review, either for all pilots or for certain pilots based on their 
experience or the nature of their flight operations.
     Aircraft annual inspections. Commenters recommended 
several approaches to relaxing the current requirements for annual 
inspections, including extending the inspection requirement to every 2 
years, particularly for aircraft not flown for compensation or hire.
     Aircraft simulation. Certain commenters disagreed with the 
FAA's interpretation requiring that a flight instructor certify 
training in flight simulation in order for a pilot to log that time.

Manufacturers

     Emergency landing dynamic conditions. Commenters requested 
that the FAA standardize its position regarding pass/fail criteria for 
transport category airplane seats. Commenters also requested 
modification to proposals and current regulations affecting emergency 
landing dynamic conditions criteria for airplane seats.
     High intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Commenters 
requested that the FAA modify the procedures for establishing 
requirements for HIRF and lightning effects to enable manufacturers to 
identify these requirements early in an aircraft certification program.

Airport/State Agencies

     Airport Security. Commenters stated that operators of 
small airports are particularly concerned about the costs of 
controlling access to areas identified as critical for security 
reasons. Commenters referred to what are described as excessive 
restrictions on public access at certain airport facilities, such as 
fixed base operators.
     Airport aid. Commenters requested better access to 
information on the FAA Airport Aid Program, changes in certain funding 
criteria, and greater consideration to costs of compliance with AC 
criteria.
     Private pilot privileges and limitations. Commenters 
requested that part 61 of the FAR be amended to permit the 
reimbursement of private pilots for fuel and oil expenses for search 
and rescue operations without requiring the pilots to have a commercial 
pilot certificate.
    Certain issues were mentioned relatively prominently by more than 
one segment of the aviation community. These issues included the 
following:
     Airworthiness Directives/Advisory Circulars. Commenters 
cited costs associated with compliance with ACs (which are not 
mandatory) and ADs (which are regulatory). Commenters suggested 
treating certain issues through the regulatory process rather than 
through ACs, and also suggested modifications to the AD process, 
including compliance schedules.
     Flight time limitations and rest requirements. Commenters 
suggested changes to pilot requirements under part 135 and to 
requirements under part 121 applicable to supplemental air carriers.
     Inoperative instruments and equipment/MEL. Commenters 
cited restrictions affecting air carrier and small aircraft MELs and 
requested greater flexibility in operating aircraft with inoperative 
instruments and equipment that they described as non-essential.
     Major repairs and alterations. Commenters requested relief 
from various requirements of part 43, Appendix A, Major Alterations, 
Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance, as well as Appendix B, 
Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations.
    Many issues in these areas are being addressed by the FAA in 
ongoing rulemaking initiatives. Other issues, such as the harmonization 
of American and European aircraft certification standards, currently 
are being addressed by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC).
    In addition, a number of commenters state that FAA's rulemaking 
process should be streamlined and that regulatory analysis and 
evaluation--the study of economic costs and benefits of proposed 
regulations or amendments--should be improved. The FAA is reviewing the 
rulemaking process and is examining several new methods for improving 
and speeding the rulemaking process. The FAA also continues to modify 
the ARAC process to make this approach to rulemaking more efficient and 
better able to meet its original objective of speeding the rulemaking 
process and expanding public involvement. The FAA Office of Aviation 
Policy, Plans, and Management Analysis, which conducts regulatory 
evaluations and analyses, is working with industry to improve 
methodologies for economic analysis. These efforts include finding 
means to obtain better cost data from industry, to improve the 
methodology used, and to improve communication between the FAA, DOT, 
and Congress on the costs and benefits of anticipated rulemaking 
projects. The FAA also is participating in a government-wide project to 
improve the use of regulatory cost and benefit analyses.
    The FAA recognizes the value of evaluating current and proposed 
regulations in terms of safety and other benefits against their 
potential cost to the public. Public comment in response to NPRMs, as 
well as during the ARAC process, ensure that the FAA will receive 
public input on specific regulatory proposals. This regulatory review 
has afforded the FAA an opportunity to understand further the public's 
viewpoints and concerns about current and proposed regulations as well 
as the regulatory process. The FAA expects to complete its review of 
all comments received and make available a report responding to all 
comments within the next few months.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 1994.
Chris A. Christie,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-17021 Filed 7-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M