[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11278-11283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6594]




[[Page 11277]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 11



Direct Final Rulemaking Procedure; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 11278]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. 27925; Amendment No. 11-40]
RIN 2120-AF55


Direct Final Rulemaking Procedure

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order on Regulatory 
Planning and Review, the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
and the Administration's Civil Aviation Initiative, the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) is implementing a new and more efficient 
procedure for adopting non-controversial or consensual rules. The 
``direct final rulemaking'' procedure involves issuing a final rule 
with an opportunity for notice and comment. This final rule will 
contain a statement that if the FAA receives no adverse or negative 
comment, or notice of intent to file such a comment, the rule will 
become effective at the end of a specified period of time after the 
close of the comment period. This new procedure is expected to reduce 
significantly the time needed to publish non-controversial or 
consensual final rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), the President set forth the Administration's 
regulatory philosophy and principles. The Executive Order contemplates 
an efficient and effective rulemaking process, including the 
conservation of the limited government resources available for carrying 
out its regulatory functions. In responding to both the letter and the 
spirit of the President's order, the Secretary of Transportation has 
directed administrations within the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
to focus on improvements that can be made in the way in which they 
propose and adopt regulations.
    The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), prior to 
its dissolution, observed that the rulemaking process has become 
increasingly time consuming. Aviation interests in particular have 
expressed concern to the FAA over the time-consuming nature of the 
regulatory process. ACUS believed that agencies should consider 
innovative methods for developing rules and obtaining public input, 
including the use of groups such as advisory committees and negotiated 
rulemaking committees. The FAA and the aviation industry have been 
engaged in one such effort for several years through the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
    In addition to focusing on consensus-based rulemaking, ACUS believe 
that agencies should consider the use of ``direct final'' rulemaking 
where appropriate to eliminate duplicative agency review and 
publication of non-controversial rules. Under the direct final rule 
procedure, an agency issues a final rule with an opportunity for 
comment and a statement that if the agency receives no adverse or 
negative comments, the rule becomes effective at a specified time after 
the close of the comment period. If an adverse comment, or a notice of 
intent to file such a comment, is received, the agency withdraws the 
rule before the effective date and issues a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in the normal manner.
    This expedited process was recommended also by the Vice President 
in his report on the National Performance Review (``Creating a 
Government That Works Better and Costs Less; Improving Regulatory 
Systems''). Use of the process is encouraged in rulemakings in which 
agencies do not believe there will be adverse public comment, in order 
to help agencies streamline their rulemaking procedures.
    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50676) that proposed using the 
direct final rulemaking procedure for non-controversial rules and for 
consensual rules, where the FAA believes there will be no adverse 
public comment. The FAA has determined that this expedited process can 
be used effectively for a number of future agency rules, including many 
of the proposed regulations based on recommendations of broad-based 
advisory committee groups such as ARAC. The FAA would consider issuing 
a direct final rule where such an advisory committee has involved 
representatives of all interested parties in negotiating a proposed 
rule; the committee has reached a unanimous recommendation; and the 
nature of the negotiations leads the FAA to believe the public will not 
file adverse comments. The FAA would expect this often to be the case, 
for example, for recommendations of the ARAC intended to harmonize FAA 
and European technical standards for the manufacture of aircraft.
    The direct final rulemaking process may also be used to issue some 
airworthiness directives (AD) whenever there is broad consensus within 
the aviation community on the FAA's view of the appropriate correction 
for an unsafe condition in an aviation product. Other possible uses of 
the process could include regulations amending airspace designations or 
extending compliance dates when such regulations are not expected to be 
controversial. There may be other effective uses of this procedure.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    When the FAA believes that a proposed regulation is unlikely to 
result in adverse comment, it may choose to use the direct final 
rulemaking process. The direct final rule will advise the public that 
no adverse comments are anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, is received within the comment period, the regulation will 
become effective at the end of a specified period of time after the 
close of the comment period. If no written adverse or negative comment, 
or notice of intent to submit such a comment, is received within the 
comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date 
indicated in the rule. The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register indicating that no adverse comments were received and 
confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. The 
confirmation notice will be issued at least 30 days prior to the 
effective date specified in the direct final rule.
    If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or 
negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, 
a notice of withdrawal of the direct final rule will be published in 
the Federal Register, and an NPRM may be published with a new comment 
period. Normal procedures for the agency's receipt and consideration of 
comments will then apply.
    The direct final rulemaking procedure provides that either the 
adverse comment or the notice of intent to submit such a comment must 
be received within the comment period. If a commenter files a notice of 
intent to submit an adverse comment within the comment period, the 
substantive comment does not have to be received

[[Page 11279]]
within the comment period. Although no specific time interval between 
the filing of the notice and the receipt of the substantive comment is 
specified, the FAA would expect to receive the substantive comment no 
later than 30 days after the comment period closes. The FAA may 
consider mandating a specific interval if experience shows a set 
deadline is needed. If no substantive comment is received following the 
submission of a notice, the FAA may elect to publish a new direct final 
rule that addresses the filing of a notice of intent to submit an 
adverse or negative comment without the subsequent comment being 
received by the agency. The agency intends to monitor the notice of 
intent to file an adverse comment process over the next year and may 
propose changes to this procedure if substantive adverse comments are 
not received following the submission of a notice.
    Comments that are outside the scope of the rule will not be 
considered adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending other 
rule changes in addition to the changes in the direct final rule would 
not be considered an adverse comment, unless the commenter states that 
the rule would be inappropriate as proposed or would be ineffective 
without the additional change. A comment not so qualified may be 
considered beyond the scope of the rulemaking.
    Although the FAA anticipates that direct final rulemaking will 
improve the rulemaking process and that the procedures established by 
this action will work well in actual practice, the FAA may propose 
modifications to the procedures. The FAA will closely monitor those 
rulemaking actions selected for direct final rulemaking to determine 
whether further action is warranted on the following issues:
    (1) Are notices of intent to file an adverse comment followed by a 
substantive comment, and within what time period?
    (2) Should the notice of intent to file an adverse comment include 
a general discussion of the nature of the adverse comment?
    (3) Could the adverse comment be addressed by a subsequent direct 
final rule or should an NPRM always be issued?

Discussion of Comments

    Twenty-nine comments were received from aviation industry 
associations, state aviation authorities, businesses, and the general 
public. The commenters raised several common themes and they have been 
grouped together.

Opportunity to Comment

    One theme was a concern that the FAA would use the new procedure to 
deny or limit the right to comment on agency rulemaking proposals. A 
particular type of rulemaking, the ``final rule with request for 
comments'' procedure used for some AD's, was cited by several 
commenters.
    The final rule with request for comments procedure has always been 
an option that was available to the agency under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). The final rule with request for comments procedure 
is based on section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA that provides that prior 
notice and public comment are not required when allowing time for 
comment would be ``impracticable'' and ``contrary to the public 
interest,'' as in the case of an emergency. The agency was not required 
to provide any comment period but decided to do so anyway. Adopting the 
direct final rule procedure will not change those procedures. The 
direct final rule procedure is based on the third APA exception to the 
prior publication requirement where notice and comment are 
``unnecessary.'' Even though the agency will be making the finding that 
prior notice and comment would be unnecessary, the direct final rule 
procedure does provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the 
proposed effective date of the rule. Moreover, regardless of their 
merits, any comment (within the scope of the rule) or intent to file a 
negative or adverse comment will result in the withdrawal of the direct 
final rule.
    Although some of the AD's that will be issued may be candidates for 
the direct final rule procedure, those AD's that are covered under 
final rule with request for comments procedures would not be candidates 
for a direct final rule. These methods of rulemaking are entirely 
distinct from the direct final rule process. Emergency rulemaking has 
been permitted under the APA for many years, and the FAA will continue 
to use that authority whenever it is necessary. Emergency rulemaking 
frequently results in the rule becoming effective before the close of 
the comment period. The emergency nature of the rulemaking demands that 
action be taken before an opportunity for notice and comment can be 
completed. The rationale for using that emergency authority will 
continue to be expressed in the preamble to the rule as required by the 
APA. Direct final rulemaking, on the other hand, is not designed for 
emergency situations. In an emergency rule, the agency makes a finding 
that prior notice and comment is not possible due to the nature of the 
emergency. In a direct final rule, the agency would ask if there were 
any negative comments and might subsequently have to publish an NPRM. 
Any action taken under direct final rulemaking would follow the 
solicitation of comments.
    The FAA intends to use the direct final rule procedure when adverse 
comments are not expected. Many of the rules, including AD's, for which 
the FAA publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking do not generate any 
comments. Some rules only generate general letters of support thanking 
the agency for the opportunity to comment without raising any 
substantive issues or concerns. These rulemaking proposals are 
subsequently adopted as proposed with only minor format changes to 
conform to final rule requirements. Although these rules are not 
controversial, considerable agency resources are expended to prepare 
both the notice and the final rule.
    More than thirty years of rulemaking experience has made the FAA 
cognizant of which rules are likely to generate adverse comments. The 
agency intends to use its years of experience to decide which rules are 
likely to be noncontroversial and thus appropriate for direct final 
rule procedures. If the agency has misjudged a particular rule, the 
public still would be afforded an opportunity for adverse comment and 
subsequently for comment through the normal NPRM process when the 
direct final rule is withdrawn. The direct final rulemaking procedure 
is not designed to keep the public from having an adequate opportunity 
to comment.
    One commenter believes that the voices of part of the public would 
not be heard because other interests are more likely to dominate the 
process. The FAA does not intend to use the direct final rule procedure 
when the circle of those affected is so large or inadequately 
represented that the level of controversy cannot be determined. Even 
one adverse comment, from any source, would trigger the traditional 
NPRM process.

Time Allotted for Comment

    Several commenters raise the concern that the time available for 
comment on a direct final rule would be inadequate. The Helicopter 
Association International (HAI) is concerned that the effective date of 
the direct final rule could be set before the close of the comment 
period. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) raises 
concerns that the direct final rule proposal truncates the minimum 
procedural requirements of the APA. Some small organizations comment 
that

[[Page 11280]]
as small organizations they do not have a full time staff to monitor 
proposed rulemaking and other developments within the FAA. In addition, 
the United States Parachute Association suggests that the FAA provide 
automatic notice to any special interest group that is affected by a 
proposed rulemaking.
    Every effort is made to distribute news of upcoming FAA rulemaking 
activities to the public. For example, the FAA routinely issues news 
releases to the national media and trade publications. In addition, the 
FAA has established an electronic bulletin board that has copies of 
recently issued notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules 
available for the public to view at no charge. The telephone number to 
access the bulletin board is 1-800-FAA-ARAC. All direct final rules 
would be included in these methods of dissemination. These 
dissemination methods are in addition to the required Federal Register 
publication of rulemaking documents. Unfortunately, resource 
limitations prevent the FAA from providing personal notification to all 
parties potentially affected by a rulemaking.
    Section 553(c) of the APA requires that, once a notice has been 
published, the public must be given time to comment on the proposal. 
While the APA does not prescribe any particular amount of time for a 
comment period to remain open, Executive Order 12866 provides that the 
comment period remain open for a minimum of 60 days unless a shorter 
period is justified in the preamble to the rule. Most FAA rulemaking 
projects, particularly those with international ramifications, have 
comment periods ranging from 60 to 120 days. Many AD's and airspace 
actions have comment periods of 30, 45, or 60 days. The FAA is aware 
that occasionally some members of the public do not learn of a 
rulemaking until close to the end of the comment period. Although no 
system is perfect, the FAA tries to allow adequate time for the 
submission of comments. For direct final rules of interest to non-U.S. 
commenters, the FAA intends to have a comment period that is adequately 
long to accommodate these commenters. Section 11.29(c) of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 11.29(c)) contains a provision for a 
potential commenter to request an extension of the comment period. That 
provision may be invoked under direct final rulemaking procedures. On 
many occasions, the FAA has extended or reopened a comment period when 
commenters have asserted that they had insufficient time to prepare 
substantive comments.
    The direct final rule program will follow the guidelines 
established under the APA and FAA policy for the solicitation of 
comments. Although a commenter may not have had time to fully develop 
its concerns, the filing of a notice of the intent to submit adverse 
comments, in effect, will stop the direct final rule from becoming 
effective. The FAA does not intend to require that a written notice of 
the intent to submit adverse comments adhere to any specific format. 
The notice may be merely a letter to the FAA Rules Docket clearly 
stating its purpose. The commenter should then submit its substantive 
objections and concerns as soon as possible.

Nature of an Adverse Comment

    Several commenters raise concerns that the agency would label 
adverse or negative comments as ``non-adverse'' and proceed to finalize 
the rule. These commenters request either standards for determining or 
guidance for deciding what would constitute an adverse comment. The Air 
Transport Association (ATA) suggests that the FAA define the terms 
``adverse'' and ``negative.'' In addition, ATA is concerned that a 
proposal drafted with the consensus of the regulated entities (such as 
an ARAC proposal) that addresses counterpoints that were considered and 
rejected (as explained in the preamble) could be subject to delay if a 
party to the process or a non-party to the process elected to file a 
notice of intent to file an adverse comment.
    The FAA finds its unnecessary to specifically define ``adverse'' 
and ``negative''. If commenters are concerned that their comments may 
be misinterpreted, they can clearly state in their comment that the 
comment is adverse. In determining whether an adverse comment is 
sufficient to terminate a direct final rulemaking, the FAA would 
consider whether a comment would be one that would warrant a 
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. The FAA would 
recognize the following, among other things, as an indication of the 
adverse nature of a comment:

--The commenter so states.
--The commenter states that the requirements are unusually burdensome.
--The commenter states that the requirements would generate significant 
controversy as to the agency's proposed solution to the problem.
--The commenter states that the requirement would result in an 
unwarranted significant change in existing practice.
--The commenter states that the requirement would impose a significant 
cost.
--The commenter states that viable, named alternatives should have been 
considered.
--The commenter states that the proposed rule would be ineffective or 
inappropriate.

--The commenter states that the rule would have an unintended effect.

    The FAA realizes that the filing of an adverse comment has the 
potential to delay the rulemaking process. Therefore, the agency 
intends to use the direct final rule procedure only in those cases 
where the agency has reason to believe that adverse comments will not 
be received. As mentioned previously, many agency rulemakings go from 
the notice stage to the final rule stage without comments being 
received and without substantive change.

Corrections to Published Rules

    The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the Regional Airline 
Association (RAA) comment that the direct final rule procedure does not 
provide for the possible need to make minor corrections based on the 
comments received.
    ``Corrections'' generally fall into two categories. The first 
category are those errors and omissions that should not have occurred. 
Using an AD as an example, such an error could be specifying a 
particular part number for all models of an aircraft when it was 
incorrectly thought that that part was used in all variants of that 
model aircraft. The FAA agrees that the commenters, particularly the 
part manufacturers and aircraft operators, note these errors in their 
comments. In this type of situation, the ``notice'' confirming the 
effective date of the rule would be styled as a ``final rule; 
correction'' to address the error. Because this type of correction 
would not impose any additional burden on the operators, the correction 
would be within the scope of the direct final rule, and an NPRM would 
not need to be issued. The second type of error typically involves a 
proposal that has an unintended result or neglects to cover all that it 
should. Again using the AD context, such an error could occur if the 
FAA learns that a particular variant of a model aircraft that should 
have been covered by the AD was not. Because the operators of the 
noncovered aircraft would not have been alerted to the potential 
requirements, the comment period must be reported to give them notice 
and an opportunity to comment. If such a situation were to occur in the

[[Page 11281]]
direct final rule context, the FAA may issue a new, superseding direct 
final rule or an NPRM. The more significant the correction, the more 
likely an NPRM would be issued. The FAA anticipates that the need for 
corrections in direct final rulemaking to be infrequent.

Response to Comments

    Several commenters note that the discussion of comments in a final 
rule preamble is beneficial to the public in understanding the intent 
of the proposal, and one commenter questions what would become of 
adverse comments leading to the withdrawal of the direct final rule and 
the issuance of an NPRM.
    The FAA agrees the discussion of comments in a final rule can be 
beneficial to the public because the disposition of comments provides 
the FAA the opportunity to clarify and explain difficult points in a 
proposal. Where comments to a direct final rule indicate that the rule 
is not clear, such comments could be considered adverse and, if so, 
would result in withdrawal of the direct final rule. However, if 
comments to a direct final rule indicate that only minor changes are 
needed to clarify the rule language without changing the substance of 
the requirement, such a minor revision could be made at the time notice 
confirming the effective date is given.
    Any adverse comments received on a proposed direct final rule would 
be discussed either in the subsequent NPRM preamble or in the preamble 
of the subsequent final rule.

Review Process

    Some commenters would like guidance to be issued as to who would 
decide, and how, that a new or revised rule is noncontroversial or 
consensual. Another commenter believes that the current NPRM process is 
adequate, but the delays in issuing rules is the result of the FAA 
review process.
    The agency will base its decision as to which rules are 
noncontroversial or consensual on its extensive interface with the 
aviation community, industry comments to the FAA's rulemaking programs, 
petitions for rulemaking, and the guidelines discussed previously. The 
agency's conclusion also will be reviewed, in effect, by the highest 
levels within the agency and by the Office of the Secretary and the 
Office of Management and Budget during their review of the ``non-
significant'' designation for the rule. Because the potential for lost 
time is present if the agency misjudges the acceptability of a 
particular rule, the agency will tend to be very conservative in its 
assessment of those projects that are candidates for direct final 
rulemaking.
    As to the timeliness of the rulemaking process, most of the reviews 
and analyses that must be performed by the agency are mandated by 
statutory provisions, Executive Orders, or Departmental policy. Because 
rulemaking in today's complex environment touches many diverse 
interests, review by many internal FAA offices is necessary to prevent 
later problems that may require revising the rule. The FAA has expanded 
its use of advisory committees to obtain predecisional input, sought 
increases in delegations of authority to reduce the levels of review, 
and instituted projects such as this proposal to improve the rulemaking 
process.

Economic Burdens

    One commenter alleges that many proposed rules are labeled as ``not 
substantial'' yet the rules actually carried a significant economic 
burden. Another commenter fears that direct final rules would permit 
the imposition of burdensome regulations on ``Part 135 Operators'' 
without proper opportunity for review.
    The FAA believes that the commenter who references rules being 
labeled ``not substantial'' is referring to the FAA's finding that a 
rule is ``not significant.'' The FAA is not aware of any rule that it 
has designated as ``non-significant'' that has imposed a significant 
economic burden. Rules that are determined to be significant would not 
be candidates for the direct final rule process.
    Whether a proposal begins as a traditional NPRM or as a direct 
final rule, the public will be given an opportunity to review the 
proposal and provide comment, just as with the NPRM-to-final rule 
process that predominates today. The only significant difference is 
that when direct final rules receive no adverse comment, only a 
confirmation notice of the effective date will be published after the 
close of the comment period.

Comments Outside the Scope of the Notice

    The ATA notes that the FAA's labeling of a comment as ``outside the 
scope'' of the rulemaking should not automatically make that comment 
nonadverse. In addition, AOPA wishes the phrase ``comments outside the 
scope of the rule'' to be narrowly construed.
    A comment that is designated as ``outside the scope'' of the rule 
would not be considered adverse because the comment does not address 
the subject of the specific rule change that is being made. The FAA 
intends to label a comment as being beyond the scope of the rulemaking 
only when the commenter raises an issue that was not the subject of the 
rulemaking. An alternative to the rulemaking is generally within the 
scope of the rulemaking. The FAA addresses comments received that are 
relevant to the proposed rule. The FAA will make every attempt to 
properly address and characterize all comments. The ``scope'' concept 
is not new; it is part of the agency's determination concerning 
comments on NPRM's. All comments received, including those determined 
to be outside the scope of the rule, will become part of the official 
rulemaking file.

ARAC

    The ATA feels the proposal is premature until problems with the 
ARAC process are resolved. In addition, AOPA wants to ensure that its 
members will be given an adequate opportunity to provide input to the 
agency before the agency's position has been determined. The RAA 
opposes the use of direct final rules for AD's and other rules that 
have not had the benefit of consensus-building through the ARAC, but 
would consider changes that make rules less stringent appropriate for 
direct final rulemaking.
    The FAA agrees that it is important for the public to have their 
views considered as early as practicable in the rulemaking process. The 
ARAC process is one means by which the agency is trying to seek out 
public input before a rule is drafted. Because ARAC-proposed rules have 
early public involvement, the FAA believes that they would be ideal 
candidates for the direct final rule process. In addition, the FAA is 
working to improve the ARAC process. A meeting was held with the ARAC 
members in late 1994 to resolve issues and improve the process. 
Recommendations from that meeting are being implemented. However, the 
FAA must start the process for implementing direct final rulemaking now 
in order to have it in place when the majority of ARAC-prepared 
proposals reach the agency. When the ARAC makes a recommendation to the 
FAA, the FAA may elect to turn that recommendation into a direct final 
rule. Other ARAC recommendations may become NPRM's. If the ARAC has not 
been able to reach consensus on a particular proposal, such a proposal 
would be considered to result in public comment.
    The FAA agrees with the RAA that some changes that make rules less 
stringent and many ARAC rule proposals would be appropriate for the 
direct final rule process. The FAA does

[[Page 11282]]
not agree, however, that direct final rulemaking should not be used for 
some AD's or other non-ARAC projects. Many AD's are issued each year in 
which no comments are received on the proposal. In many others, the 
comments result in only minor changes. The time saved by using the 
direct final rule process will benefit the public. The FAA notes that 
some AD's and other important rulemaking projects would be 
inappropriate for the direct final rulemaking process. The FAA 
emphasizes that direct final rulemaking will only be used when there is 
a reasonable assurance that adverse comments are unlikely.

Other Comments

    One commenter is concerned that the direct final rule process would 
make it difficult for aviation mechanics to track AD's issued through 
direct final rulemaking in the ``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' (a 
compilation of issued airworthiness directives).
    AD's issued in the form of an NPRM are not incorporated into the 
``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' until they are issued as final 
rules. Similarly, any AD issued under the direct final rule process 
will not appear in the ``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' until the FAA 
publishes a notice in the Federal Register confirming the proposed 
effective date of the direct final rule; a direct final rule would be 
substantially indistinguishable from an NPRM for the purposes of the 
``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues''. No action would be required by a 
direct final rule until such time as it becomes effective.
    Another commenter would like to amend the proposal to require a 
``high'' degree of consensus among the parties affected by the rule 
before the direct final rule procedure is invoked. (The proposal used 
the term ``broad'' instead of ``high.'') The FAA would only consider 
``consensus'' as indicating that a direct final rule is appropriate 
when that consensus is complete, i.e., when there are no indications of 
dissenting opinion. This could be characterized as a ``high'' degree of 
consensus.
    A commenter suggests issuing some form of public periodical 
containing a listing of those upcoming proposals that the agency 
believes are non-controversial. The FAA agrees and intends to use the 
``Semiannual Regulatory Agenda'' (Agenda) to partially fulfill this 
request. Published twice a year, the Agenda provides a summary of every 
known future rulemaking, except routine actions such as AD's and 
airspace actions. The FAA believes that such a listing could be 
included as part of the electronic bulletin board and will investigate 
adding the listing.
    One commenter raises several concerns with the AD system that were 
beyond the scope of the notice. These concerns will be forwarded to the 
office with responsibility for the AD system for review.

General Support for Proposal

    Five commenters stated general support for the direct rule 
proposal, but some had concerns that have been discussed earlier. The 
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) supports the direct final rule 
proposal because it will speed up the FAA rulemaking process for those 
rules that are being harmonized with the Joint Aviation Regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This amendment to part 11 will provide a new and more efficient 
procedure for adopting non-controversial or consensual rules. The FAA 
believes that there will be no cost with the use of this procedure in 
appropriate instances. Use of this alternative procedure is expected to 
reduce the costs of rulemaking to the FAA by eliminating duplicate 
publication of rule text when no adverse comment was received. In cases 
where the rule will result in cost savings to the aviation industry, 
use of this alternative will allow the industry to achieve these cost 
savings sooner than if the current rulemaking procedures were used. 
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that because no costs can be 
foreseen and the expected economic impact of the amendment is minimal 
and may save the industry money, a full regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted.
International Trade Impact
    The rule is only a change in the FAA's procedure for rulemaking and 
will result in some improvement in the processing time for projects to 
harmonize FAA regulations with those of the JAA.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 ensures that small 
entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by 
Government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules that 
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The costs associated with this proposed rule are minimal, and 
are well below any threshold established by FAA Order 2100.14A. 
Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
any small entity.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations adopted herein will not have 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 levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism assessment.
Conclusion
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this 
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); (3) will not have a significant 
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small 
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; and (4) 
that because any economic impact would be minimal, a full regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 11
    Administrative practice and procedure, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
The Amendment
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 11 as follows:
PART 11--GENERAL RULE-MAKING PROCEDURES
    1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113, 
44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.

    2. A new Sec. 11.17 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 11.17  Direct final rule.
    Whenever the FAA anticipates that a proposed regulation is unlikely 
to result in adverse comment, it may choose to issue a direct final 
rule. The direct final rule will advise the public that no adverse or 
negative comments are anticipated, and that unless a written adverse or 
negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or 
negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation 
will become effective on the date specified in the direct final rule. 
If no written adverse or negative comment, or notice of intent to 
submit such a comment is received within the comment period, the direct 
final rule will become effective on the date

[[Page 11283]]
indicated in the direct final rule. The FAA will publish a document in 
the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments 
were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will 
become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, 
an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit 
such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be 
published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking 
may be published with a new comment period. Normal procedures for the 
agency's receipt and consideration of comments will then apply.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 12, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6594 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M