[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56539-56541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28377]


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

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:
     Rotorcraft: Alternate Airport and Special VFR Operations
     Fuel requirements: Reserves for IFR and VFR flight
     Alternate airport requirements
     Maintenance
     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--
     Emergency revocation of a certificate,
     Crewmember flight and duty time requirements, and
     Enrollment requirements for flight schools.
    In addition, the FAA is addressing policies and procedures 
regarding issues similar to those raised by commenters. For example--
     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.
     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.
     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. 98-28377 Filed 10-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M