[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