[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 162 (Monday, August 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50850-50869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20481]



[[Page 50849]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 11



General Rulemaking Procedures; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 162 / Monday, August 21, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 50850]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. FAA 1999-6622; Amendment No. 11-46]
RIN 2120-AG95


General Rulemaking Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this final rule in response to President 
Clinton's mandate to Federal agencies to make communications with the 
public more understandable. The FAA is revising and clarifying its 
rulemaking procedures by putting them into plain language and by 
removing redundant and outdated material. Rulemaking procedures are an 
important way for the public to interact with FAA, and it is important 
that these procedures be easy to understand and follow.

DATES: Effective September 20, 2000.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the final rule.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the 
Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this final 
rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBRFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us [email protected].

Background

    The FAA is revising part 11 by eliminating redundant and outdated 
information that is not necessary to public participation in the 
rulemaking process. We also are removing supplementary information 
available on request from FAA, such as internal delegations of 
authority. This change will help FAA keep its procedures current 
because we will not have to revise part 11 to update supplementary 
information not critical to your participation in the rulemaking 
process.
    Because we are eliminating redundant material from subparts A 
through E, we are folding all its rulemaking procedures into one 
subpart. This rulemaking consolidates material on different aspects of 
our regulatory program, clarifying that there is really only one basic 
process the public must follow to interact with our regulatory program. 
We have eliminated some provisions that are obsolete. We explain these 
changes in more detail in the following paragraphs. Finally, we have 
updated our list of information collection clearance numbers previously 
designated subpart F, now redesignated subpart B. We did not include 
new subpart B in the proposal, but we include it here.

General Substantive Changes From the Proposed Amendment of Part 11

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential Memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, FAA re-examined the writing style currently 
used in the development of regulations. The memorandum requires federal 
agencies to communicate clearly with the public. The proposed revision 
to part 11 was the FAA's first significant attempt to write rules in 
plain language. The FAA received numerous favorable comments on the 
clarity and style of the document. We will continue with this effort to 
improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get 
more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain 
language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
    We hope this new plain language format will help readers find 
requirements quickly and understand them easily. We reorganized and 
reworded the regulation using plain-language techniques not usually 
found in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR). We used undesignated center headings to cluster related sections 
within subpart A. We shortened sections, paragraphs, and sentences, and 
where possible used simple words to speed up reading and improve 
understanding. We put our section headings in the form of questions to 
help direct the readers to specific material they are interested in. We 
used personal pronouns to reduce passive voice and draw readers into 
the writing.

Petition for Reconsideration of Final Rules

    We have removed any reference in part 11 to petitions for 
reconsideration of a final rule. The previous rule discussed this 
procedure only for final rules for the designation of controlled 
airspace and for airworthiness directives (see old rule Secs. 11.73 and 
11.93). Actually, under both the previous part 11 and this amendment, 
you may ask FAA to reconsider any agency final rule by following FAA 
rulemaking procedures. For example, if FAA issues a final rule 
accompanied by a request for comments, you may submit arguments why FAA 
should not have adopted the final rule. If we agree, we may issue 
another final rule repealing or revising the earlier rule.
    In addition, you may file a petition for rulemaking to repeal or 
revise a final rule we adopted. If we agree with you that we should not 
have adopted the final rule, we may issue another final rule repealing 
or revising it. If you persuade us that the final rule was not 
reasonable in light of the record, including the comments we received, 
we may do this by issuing an immediate final rule to correct the 
problem. If you provide information that we didn't have before, we may 
need to provide others with an opportunity for others to comment before 
issuing a revision or repealing the rule.

Petitions for Rulemaking and Exemption

    In proposed Sec. 11.63 we provided an address at FAA to send your 
paper and electronic petitions for rulemaking and

[[Page 50851]]

exemption. In the final rule, these addresses have been changed to the 
Department of Transportation's Docket Management System (DMS), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001 for paper submissions, and the DMS web page 
at http://dms.dot.gov/ for electronic submissions. See the section-by-
section discussion on Sec. 11.63 that follows for further information. 
Additionally, the rule no longer discusses where to file petitions for 
exemption from the medical standards in part 67, since exceptions to 
these standards are now handled by special issuances under Sec. 67.401.
    We removed any reference in this rule to the publication of 
summaries of petitions for rulemaking for public comment because we do 
an initial screening when we receive your petition. In circumstances 
where your petition does not meet our criteria for action, we will deny 
your petition without delay. In deciding whether to take action on your 
petition, we consider: the immediacy of the safety or security concerns 
you raise; their priority relative to other issues we must address; and 
the resources we have available to address these issues. We also may 
decline to handle your petition as a separate action if we are already 
addressing the issues you raise. For example, if we have tasked the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to study the general 
subject area of your petition, we may ask ARAC to review and evaluate 
your proposed action as well.
    If your petition for rulemaking meets these criteria for action, 
and we are not otherwise addressing the issues you raise, we will 
respond by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) no later than 
6 months after we receive your petition. In such a case, we invite 
public comment on the proposed rule, rather than on your petition 
itself.
    The FAA no longer publishes summaries of denials of petitions for 
rulemaking, in order to preserve resources for processing priority 
rulemaking actions.
    Several commenters stated that we should reintroduce FAA's practice 
of notifying petitioners by mail of the disposition of their petitions. 
Although this notification was stated in old Secs. 11.53(b) and 
11.91(b), we inadvertently left this off our proposal. We never 
intended to eliminate this practice and will continue to notify 
petitioners directly. We have added a statement to this affect in the 
beginning of Sec. 11.73 for petitions for rulemaking and new 
Sec. 11.91(a) for petitions for exemption.

Petitions for Reconsideration of Denied Petitions

    Final part 11 also creates a single, simplified section to explain 
how to ask FAA to reconsider a denial of a petition for rulemaking or 
exemption. It is a simplified version of the old rule that applied to 
denials of exemption (old Sec. 11.55(d)). To get FAA to reconsider a 
denial, you must present a significant new fact and tell us why you 
didn't include it in your original petition. Or you have to show us how 
we made a significant factual error or misapplied a law, regulation, or 
precedent. If you can't do this, we won't be able to reconsider your 
petition.

Information About Delegations

    We have removed almost all the references to internal FAA 
delegations relating to rulemaking actions. A number of these 
delegations in old part 11 are out of date. We will publish a separate 
notice in the Federal Register, telling you who exercises the authority 
of the Administrator in rulemaking matters. Doing this by notice 
instead of regulation will make it easier for us to keep this 
information current. You also can get this information from us at any 
time by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Airspace Designations

    The procedures for designation of airspace previously in subpart D 
of part 11 are a variation of the other rulemaking procedures covered 
elsewhere in part 11. Since final part 11 consolidates all our 
rulemaking procedures in one subpart, the only material remaining in 
part 11 specific to designating airspace is the material in new 
Sec. 11.77, listing what information you must provide when you petition 
FAA to establish, amend, or revoke an airspace designation. This 
information is in addition to what you must provide with any other 
petition for rulemaking.

General Discussion of Comments

    The NPRM appeared in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999, (64 
FR 69856) and the public comment period closed January 28, 2000. We 
received comments from 21 different commenters. All commenters were 
generally supportive of the proposal. Commenters included aircraft 
manufacturers, operators, pilots, organizations representing these 
groups, and individuals. Commenters praised the NPRM format for its 
potential to enhance regulatory clarity and communication with the 
public and for removing redundant and outdated information. Some 
commenters expressed specific concerns. We address these in detail in 
the following discussion.
    First, we will discuss general comments and comments not specific 
to one section, then we'll discuss more specific comments organized by 
section.

Plain Language

    Of the 21 individual commenters, 18 addressed the plain language 
format of the proposal. Without exception, they were supportive of the 
format. The following two examples are typical. ``Three cheers to the 
FAA on your efforts to switch to plain language. I feel that it will 
increase safety, because the aviation community will be able to 
understand exactly what is expected of them and what they must do. 
Bravo.'' ``I am a pilot and find this information to be much easier to 
read and comprehend than any other. It is organized and easy to follow. 
Hope to see more like it.''
    Several commenters, while positive about the plain language 
presentation in general, were skeptical about certain specific aspects. 
One commenter noted that ``Plain language conversion lends itself to a 
simple administrative regulation such as FAR Part 11. However, 
providing similar treatment to more complex parts such as 23 or 121 may 
prove quite challenging. Yet, this is an effort that must be undertaken 
for the sake of clarity and understanding for both regulator and 
regulated.''
    Two commenters stated that they do not like the question and answer 
format in section headings. For example, one said ``the question-and-
answer format used for section headings in the proposal is an atrocious 
construction and an offence [sic] to the reader. Using this technique 
presumes that the reader cannot fathom simple declarative section 
headings. Further, it complicates the structure of the heading, impairs 
understanding and reduces the ability of the reader to find subject 
headings.'' Another stated that ``[we find] the question and answer 
(Q&A) format proposed in the regulations to be a barrier to efficient 
use of proposed new part 11. The Q&A format does not lend itself to use 
of the table of sections as a research tool; rather, this format forces 
the reader to read the table of sections like a novel, and inhibits 
quickly reviewing the section headings to locate required information. 
The Q&A format also imposes on proposed new part 11 a simplistic tone 
that is both at odds with the professional rigor and discipline that 
characterizes the revised section material itself, and which [our]

[[Page 50852]]

members who reviewed the NPRM found pedantic and annoying.''
    One additional commenter stated that the question-and-answer format 
did not work for some of the specific sections, especially the 
``Applicability'' section. On the other hand, three commenters spoke in 
support of the question-and-answer aspect of the format. For example, 
one stated ``I like your use of the question-answer format. In the 
Coast Guard, we have found that even lengthy, highly technical 
regulations benefit from this format. On behalf of your readers, keep 
up the good work.''
    Other suggestions included making the section headings shorter. 
While we understand that readers very familiar with the material may 
not need long informative headings, we believe they are especially 
helpful to new readers. Informative headings serve as guideposts to 
help readers navigate through a complex document such as a regulation. 
Therefore, we have decided to retain the longer headings.
    The FAA appreciates the overwhelming support of the general plain 
language format. We agree that this format is a better way to 
communicate with our various reader groups. While our resources will 
not enable us to write all new documents in this format, we intend to 
move aggressively to make all our written material easier to understand 
and more reader-friendly. Regarding the question-and-answer format, 
headings as questions are not in any way intended to talk down to the 
reader. Public reaction to plain language regulations of other agencies 
that begin with questions has been generally favorable, especially from 
first time readers. Questions have a number of advantages. They ensure 
that a heading fully informs the reader of the content of the section. 
Since their scope is usually narrower than the traditional two or three 
word headings, sections tend to be shorter--an advantage to the reader. 
When the drafter thinks in terms of what questions the reader will ask, 
the information provided is more comprehensive and logically presented. 
We believe question headings are particularly helpful for general rules 
that reach a broad audience, such as part 11.
    However, we do plan to use question headings with discretion. 
Question headings are not necessarily right for every subject matter. 
While we believe they are appropriate for the material presented in 
part 11, they may not work well for other, complex technical parts of 
the regulations. We will evaluate the subject matter carefully before 
we use them in our regulations.
    Regarding writing most section headings as questions, but making an 
occasional exception, as one commenter seems to suggest, readability 
research shows that it's not a good idea to switch back and forth 
between heading types. Switching heading types can be confusing to the 
reader. So, while we agree that in a few cases--a definitions section 
would be a prime example--a question heading may not seem beneficial, 
the need to be consistent in heading type is important. Therefore, if 
we decide that a question-and-answer format is overall the best 
approach for a particular rule, we generally will use question headings 
for all sections.

Reorganization of Definitions

    Two commenters made essentially identical suggestions that FAA 
create a special section for definitions at the beginning of part 11. 
They suggested that a single section containing the definitions of the 
various types of rulemaking actions would result in a more concise and 
easier to understand regulation. They recommended ``the FAA consolidate 
the definitions contained in Secs. 11.13, 11.17, 11.19, 11.23, 11.25, 
11.29 into a single section entitled `Definitions'.'' Other commenters 
suggested we add additional definitions.
    It has been FAA's practice to place definitions that apply to more 
than one CFR part of our regulations in 14 CFR part 1. Where a 
definition is needed only for a single CFR part we have placed it at 
the beginning of the part, along with others that apply just to that 
part. Having them at the beginning of the part is sometimes more 
convenient for the reader. It can also alert the reader that some terms 
in the part have a special meaning. Therefore, we have accepted this 
suggestion to place the definitions at the beginning of the part. 
However, we do not agree that it's a good idea to put all these 
definitions in one section. We believe this subject matter lends itself 
to separate sections for each term, principally because some of the 
sections are not simple definitions but expand on a topic and include 
regulatory material. We have moved all the ``what is'' questions closer 
to the beginning of the part and included a centered heading 
``Definition of Terms'' to assist the reader looking for a specific 
definition. We have also added definitions of petition for exemption, 
petition for rulemaking, and special condition. One commenter suggested 
we define the words ``frivolous'' and ``insubstantial.'' We do not 
believe this is necessary. We give these words no special meaning 
beyond the definitions found in any standard dictionary.
    Because we have moved the definitions to the beginning of the part, 
and added three additional definitions not found in the proposed rule, 
we have renumbered both the definitions sections and later sections in 
the rule, up through Sec. 11.40. The following section-by-section 
discussion notes the number of each section in the proposed and final 
versions of the part.

Ex Parte Issues

    A number of commenters reacted strongly to our proposal to remove 
the statement in old Sec. 11.65 that said an interested person is 
entitled to discuss or confer informally with appropriate FAA officials 
concerning a proposed action. Section 11.65 dealt only with issuing 
NPRM's for airspace assignment and use. It never applied generally to 
FAA's rulemaking process. Since this statement on its face purports to 
deal with requests made before, during, and after the comment period 
for a proposal, it is contrary to DOT ex parte policy. That policy 
prohibits non-public contacts with DOT officials once an NPRM has been 
issued. We said that where discussion of a proposal is appropriate, FAA 
would hold an open public meeting.
    Our discussion of our proposed action was too brief and led many 
commenters to conclude that we proposed to prohibit all informal 
contacts with the public during the development of regulations. These 
contacts are commonly known as ``ex parte contacts,'' since usually 
only one party to an issue is present at the meeting with the agency. 
DOT policy does not prohibit all such public contacts. In fact, DOT 
policy encourages agencies to contact the public directly when we need 
factual information to resolve substantive questions. It also 
encourages agencies to be receptive to proper contacts from persons 
affected by or interested in a proposed action.
    Under some circumstances an ex parte contact could affect the basic 
openness and fairness of the rulemaking process. Even the appearance of 
impropriety could affect public confidence in the process. For this 
reason, DOT policy sets careful guidelines for these contacts. The kind 
of ex parte contacts permitted and the procedures we follow depend on 
when during the rulemaking process the contact occurs. To ensure that 
the public understands what guidelines FAA follows in making or 
entertaining public contacts during rulemaking, we have added an 
appendix to part 11,

[[Page 50853]]

setting out DOT policy on ex parte contacts.
    DOT policy encourages FAA to collect relevant information from 
regulated parties before we issue an NPRM. However, once the public 
comment period begins and the rulemaking docket is open to accept 
written communications, DOT policy discourages oral communications on 
the proposal. Some commenters generally felt we were being overly 
restrictive and extreme when compared to other federal agencies. One 
organization said that the elimination of an individual's option to 
contact FAA personnel regarding the provisions of a proposed rule would 
severely curtail the public's ability to provide objective comments to 
FAA. We disagree with the commenter, since there is very little 
relevant information that cannot be presented to the public docket. The 
commenter also stated that holding public meetings, which it feels are 
a pulpit for narrow special interests, is not always possible. However, 
we have not had significant problems with holding public meetings where 
oral comments on a proposal would be helpful.
    One organization acknowledges that DOT ex parte policy prohibits 
non-public contacts with DOT officials once an NPRM has been issued, 
but maintains that such non-public contacts provide a vital link 
between the flying public and appropriate authorities within FAA. It 
points out that aircraft type-clubs, aircraft owners and operators, and 
mechanics regularly use such ``non-public'' contacts as an informal way 
to gain the facts they need to provide objective comments to FAA 
rulemaking actions. The commenter asserted that elimination of this 
link effectively denies the public access to the rulemaking process.
    DOT policy is designed to balance the need for collecting 
information with the benefit of an open process. It is essential that 
all interested persons have access to the views presented to FAA by 
other persons with competing interests. Every NPRM includes a contact 
person whom the public can call for information. However, this person 
cannot accept comments. When FAA receives an oral contact requesting 
information in addition to that provided in an NPRM, we provide only 
information that is publicly available to other interested parties.
    This free exchange of ideas, facilitated by the public docket, 
ensures that we will make a well-informed decision. When FAA needs 
additional factual information to understand a comment or to support 
our analysis (for example, the availability of parts), we may on our 
own contact an interested person. We make a record of that contact and 
enter it in the rulemaking docket, and, if it influences our decision, 
we discuss it in the preamble to the final rule.
    A commenter said that caution should be exercised in prescribing an 
unduly broad definition of ex parte communications. The commenter read 
the proposal as declaring that all non-public contacts with FAA 
officials once an NPRM has been issued constitute illegal ex parte 
communications. The commenter asserted that past practices generally 
permitted senior agency officials to docket a summary of discussions 
regarding a proposal in certain circumstances, rather than providing 
for an absolute bar of those discussions. The commenter urged FAA to 
maintain general procedures permitting free flow of information to the 
extent necessary to yield informed rulemaking decisions and in a manner 
that satisfies the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    DOT policy strongly discourages ex parte contacts after the comment 
period is closed. Although there is no absolute bar to discussions 
regarding a regulatory proposal, FAA is generally cautious when meeting 
with parties interested in a proposal. If a meeting set up for another 
purpose turns to the topic of an NPRM, we caution the participants that 
we cannot discuss the proposal outside of a public meeting and invite 
them to file written comments to the docket. We think the written 
comment process and public meetings, where appropriate, are sufficient 
to ensure the free flow of ideas and an informed decision-making 
process.
Communications Regarding Petitions
     One commenter was concerned that we were prohibiting contacts 
regarding petitions for rulemaking or exemption. The commenter stated 
it would be beneficial for the individual or company that has filed a 
petition for exemption to be able to keep in contact and communicate 
with the agency on the status of the exemption request. The commenter 
also stated it would be helpful to be able to comment or meet with 
personnel to discuss problems with the request and to provide facts to 
solve problems as they come up. We agree in part with the commenter. 
While FAA cannot advise petitioners on how to write petitions, or 
negotiate with petitioners our final action on their petitions, we have 
always sought information directly from petitioners where we need that 
information to process a petition for exemption. When we do this, we 
also put a record of the contact in the rulemaking docket.
Protecting Sensitive Information
    Another commenter believed that meetings on some subjects, such as 
aviation security rules, should not be held in public. The commenter 
stated that any meeting can be held in private as long as the agency 
places a record of the meeting in the public docket, including general 
information that the meeting took place and what was discussed without 
detailing the sensitive information. The FAA in fact does not discuss 
security sensitive information in public. We even provide a separate 
confidential docket for some rulemakings, where commenters can 
supplement their public comments with sensitive information we agree we 
should protect.
    In sum, we have not made any changes to the rule text itself 
regarding ex parte matters. We have added an appendix to part 11 to 
explain our ex parte policy.

Making the Process Open--the Docket Management System

    The Secretary of Transportation has directed the Office of the 
Secretary (OST) and the DOT operating administrations to consolidate 
their separate paper-based docket facilities into a single, central 
facility and convert to an electronic image-based Docket Management 
System (DMS). In 1996, the Department changed the filing requirements 
for the OST docket by issuing a final rule, ``Revised Filing Procedures 
for the OST Docket'' (61 FR 29282). This final rule amended 14 CFR 302. 
The rule instructed the public how to submit items to DMS, then called 
the Docket Management Facility. This change enabled the Department to 
provide better service and access to the public and to government 
users. The FAA is currently using DMS to docket rulemaking projects 
originating in FAA headquarters and regions, other than airworthiness 
directives and certain airspace actions. The FAA is working toward 
consolidating the FAA Rule Docket and its regional dockets into DMS. 
The consolidation will eliminate duplication, improve records 
management, enhance docket security, and provide easier public access 
by creating a single point of entry. An electronic image-based docket 
will provide public and government users with quicker access to 
docketed information, more sophisticated search capabilities, and 
electronic transmission of information to and from DMS. By 
transitioning to DMS, FAA will be able to accept electronic submission 
of petitions and the public will also be

[[Page 50854]]

able to research dockets remotely using the Internet.

Special Conditions

    We removed the discussion of special conditions previously in 
Sec. 11.28 from the proposed version of part 11. The reason we gave for 
removing the section was that we follow the same rulemaking procedures 
for special conditions as we do for ``general rules.'' This statement 
may be misleading. Special conditions are not general rules, since they 
apply to a particular aircraft design. Because they are rules of 
``particular applicability'' under the Administrative Procedure Act, 
the act does not require public notice and comment before we issue 
them. However, as we said in the notice, FAA does follow notice and 
comment procedures anyway, because we may receive useful information. 
We do not follow other procedures associated with general rules.
    We have decided that the reader may find it helpful to have some 
discussion of special conditions in part 11. We have included a 
definition of a special condition (new Sec. 11.19). We also inserted a 
section (new Sec. 11.38) stating that we generally follow notice and 
comment procedures and describing the situations where we do not do 
this.
    The special conditions section that we removed from part 11 noted 
that FAA does not hold public hearings, argument, or formal hearings 
before issuing a special condition. Although the procedures in this 
revised part 11 regarding public hearings would theoretically apply to 
special conditions, it continues to be unlikely that we would grant a 
request for a public meeting. In most cases a meeting would not provide 
more information than written comments. Also, it would be difficult to 
protect the proprietary information involved in the certification 
process in a public discussion.

Other General Issues

    A number of commenters encouraged us to clarify and simplify other 
FAA regulations. We are in the process of doing this as our resources 
permit. One commenter specifically recommended that we work towards 
``the important objective of performance-based regulations.'' We are 
also doing this where the subject matter is appropriate, as we have 
been directed by the President's Executive Order 12866 on rulemaking.
    Another commenter suggested that some specific sections be combined 
into one larger section. We have looked at the entire proposed layout 
of part 11 to decide whether some sections could be combined or 
rearranged. However, we believe it would be better to follow the plain 
language principle that shorter sections are easier to read and absorb.
    Several commenters caught grammatical errors or inconsistencies in 
the proposed version of the part. We have fixed these problems but have 
not described them in this preamble. You can see all these comments on 
the Department of Transportation's electronic docket at http://dms.dot.gov, under docket number FAA-1999-6622. We appreciate 
commenters' taking the time to provide us with this help.

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 11.1  To what does this part apply?

    This section explains what the part addresses. Aside from the issue 
about headings that we address in the ``General Discussion of 
Comments'' part of this preamble, we received no comments on this 
section. We adopt it as proposed.

Section 11.3 (Proposed Sec. 11.13)  What is an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking?

Section 11.5 (Proposed Sec. 11.17)  What is a notice of proposed 
rulemaking?

Section 11.7 (Proposed Sec. 11.19)  What is a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking?

Section 11.9 (Proposed Sec. 11.23)  What is a final rule?

    These first several sections describe particular types of 
rulemaking documents. In response to comments about definitions, we've 
placed all definitions near the beginning of the part and have inserted 
a centered heading ``Definition of Terms'' immediately before 
Sec. 11.3. We've discussed definitions in the ``General Discussion of 
Comments'' part of this preamble.
    One commenter suggested a minor wording change for clarity to 
proposed Sec. 11.23 (redesignated Sec. 11.9). The FAA has accepted this 
suggestion in part, and has added the word ``will'' to the last 
sentence. Other than that minor change, and comments suggesting a 
reorganization of definitions, we received no comments on these 
sections and adopted them as proposed.

Section 11.11 (Proposed Sec. 11.29)  What is a final rule with request 
for comments?

    This section defines how a final rule with request for comments 
differs from other final rules, on which we do not invite comment. We 
explain in the definition that we usually invite comment on these rules 
because we did not issue an ANPRM or NPRM. We also note that a final 
rule not preceded by a notice is commonly called an ``immediately 
adopted final rule.'' We had neglected to provide a definition of this 
rule type in the proposed rule.
    One commenter suggested we change the wording of the heading to 
``immediately adopted'' instead of ``direct final.'' Apparently the 
commenter meant to refer to proposed Sec. 11.25 (adopted as 
Sec. 11.13), and we have addressed this comment in the discussion of 
that section.
    The same commenter suggested moving this section to a consolidated 
definitions section. That comment is addressed in the General Comments 
part of this preamble.

Section 11.13 (Proposed Sec. 11.25)  What is a direct final rule?

    This section defines a direct final rule, which is a type of final 
rule with request for comments not preceded by an NPRM. We issue a 
direct final rule when we do not expect to receive any adverse 
comments, and so notice is unnecessary. If we do receive an adverse 
comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, we withdraw the 
final rule before it becomes effective and can issue an NPRM.
    Proposed Sec. 11.25 described what types of comments FAA considers 
adverse, but in the final rule we have moved this discussion to 
Sec. 11.31 where we describe the procedures we follow for these rules. 
We believe it fits better there.
    A commenter on those procedures suggested we take out the word 
``generally'' in reference to the 60-day time period between 
publication and a direct final rule's effective date, on the basis that 
a consistent time frame is desirable. While we agree that a consistent 
time frame is preferable, there may be some circumstances when a 
shorter or longer period is necessary. We decline to accept this 
comment.
    The same commenter suggested we define the words ``frivolous'' and 
``insubstantial.'' As noted in the discussion of definitions, we do not 
believe this is necessary. We give these words no special meaning 
beyond the definitions found in any standard dictionary.
    The same commenter suggested we change the heading of this section 
to refer to ``immediately adopted'' final rules rather than ``direct'' 
final rules. Any rule for which we do not issue an NPRM is commonly 
referred to as an ``immediately adopted final rule.'' Although this 
expression does describe direct final rules, only a small percentage of 
rules issued without

[[Page 50855]]

notice are direct final rules. Therefore, it would not be correct to 
change the section heading as the commenter requests.

Section 11.15 (New)  What is a petition for exemption?

Section 11.17 (New)  What is a petition for rulemaking?

    In proposed Sec. 11.61 we used a table to describe these types of 
petitions. In response to comments about definitions, we've added these 
two new definitions for petitions for exemption and petitions for 
rulemaking near the beginning of the part and have inserted a centered 
heading ``Definition of Terms'' immediately before this section. We've 
discussed definitions in the ``General Discussion of Comments'' part of 
this preamble. We have expanded Sec. 11.61 and discuss the scope of 
petitions for exemption and petitions for rulemaking.

Section 11.19 (New)  What is a special condition?

    We did not include the section on special conditions in our 
proposed part 11. The FAA issues special conditions when we find that 
the airworthiness standards for a proposed aircraft, engine, or 
propeller design do not contain adequate or appropriate safety 
standards, because of a novel or unusual design feature. The reason we 
gave for omitting the section was that we follow the same rulemaking 
procedures for special conditions as we do for ``general rules.'' This 
statement may be misleading. Special conditions are not general rules, 
since they apply to a particular aircraft design. Because they are 
rules of ``particular applicability'' under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, the act does not require public notice and comment 
before we issue them. However, as we said in the notice, FAA does 
follow notice and comment procedures anyway, because we may receive 
useful information. We do not follow other procedures associated with 
general rules.
    We have decided that the reader may find it helpful to have some 
discussion of special conditions in part 11. We have included a 
definition of a special condition. We also inserted a section (new 
Sec. 11.38) stating that we generally follow notice and comment 
procedures and describing the situations where we do not do this.

Section 11.21 (Proposed Sec. 11.3)  What are the most common kinds of 
rulemaking actions for which FAA follows the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA)?

    This section describes the major types of rulemaking actions FAA 
undertakes under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). One commenter 
suggested changing this section to include Advisory Circulars (AC) and 
to clarify what FAA documents are not covered by this rule or by the 
APA. The FAA believes that it could be misleading to list in part 11 
those documents, such as advisory circulars, that are not mandatory. 
Although advisory circulars, for example, cannot impose new 
requirements in addition to those in the regulations, they may contain 
sections that paraphrase the regulations. Also, to the extent that a 
person chooses to follow an acceptable means of compliance explained in 
an AC, that method becomes mandatory for that individual.
    Another commenter stated that use of the abbreviation ``APA'' in 
the title of the section was confusing. We agree, in this final version 
we've written out the name of the Act. The same commenter noted that in 
proposed Sec. 11.3(a)(3), ``Airspace Designations'' should be 
``Airspace designations'' since these are generic airspace designations 
rather than a specific document titled Airspace Designation. We 
disagree, since we use this term to refer to a specific type of 
designation, and have long used it as a proper noun. We have not 
accepted this suggestion.
    We've changed the word ``major'' in paragraph (a) to ``common,'' to 
be consistent with the heading of the rule.
    We have omitted proposed paragraph (b) from this final version, and 
renumbered the paragraphs accordingly. Proposed paragraph (b) addressed 
exemptions. We have addressed exemptions more fully later in this 
regulation. Exemptions are not ``common rulemaking actions'' so we 
should not address them here.
    Other than omitting proposed paragraph (b), changing the title of 
the section to spell out the name of the act, and changing ``major'' to 
``common'' in paragraph (a), we adopt this section as proposed.

Section 11.23 (Proposed Sec. 11.5)  Does FAA follow the same procedures 
in issuing all types of rules?

    This section states that in general, FAA follows the same 
procedures for all major rule types. It lists the few minor differences 
in FAA's rulemaking procedures. We received no comments on this 
section. We have removed the word ``three'' from the heading, simply to 
give FAA flexibility in the future should we need to use some currently 
unanticipated form of rulemaking. Otherwise, we adopt it as proposed.

Section 11.25 (Proposed Sec. 11.11)  How does FAA issue rules?

    This section describes the process FAA follows to issue rules. It 
lists the kinds of rulemaking documents we issue, as well as the types 
of information generally found in these documents.
    One commenter suggested different language for proposed 
Sec. 11.11(a). As proposed, the section said FAA may issue some type of 
rulemaking document during the rulemaking process. The commenter 
thought the section should state that FAA will issue a rulemaking 
document, and publish it within 30 days. The commenter doesn't specify 
from what point it wants FAA to count the 30 days.
    The proposed version of this section did not mean that we would not 
issue any rulemaking document. Rather, we meant that we had the 
authority to issue whichever type of document was appropriate. To 
clarify our meaning, we have accepted this suggestion and changed 
``may'' to ``will'' in the final rule. However, see the previous 
discussion of the rulemaking docket, in the section on Petitions for 
Rulemaking and Exemption in our discussion of ``General Substantive 
Changes from the Proposed Amendment of Part 11.'' While resource 
concerns prevent us from making a commitment to make every document 
available within 30 days, we believe our expanded use of the electronic 
docket will make materials available to the public more quickly than 
currently is the case.
    The same commenter thought proposed Sec. 11.11(b)(4) was in 
conflict with the reason we provided for the elimination of Sec. 11.65 
of the old rule, which dealt with an interested person's ability to 
discuss or confer informally with appropriate FAA officials concerning 
a proposed airspace designation action. The commenter asked for 
clarification of the intent of paragraph (4), which provides that FAA's 
rulemaking documents will include a person to contact if a reader has 
questions about the document. The commenter went on to suggest that any 
discussion with FAA about a rulemaking document be in the form of a 
written document accessible to other interested parties.
    The FAA does not believe this provision conflicts with the 
elimination of Sec. 11.65. This provision is meant to provide the 
public with a specific person to contact if they have questions about 
what a rulemaking document means, what FAA's schedule for the document 
is, or other general questions about the process. It is not intended to 
provide a contact that can enter into

[[Page 50856]]

detailed discussions about what a proposal should say. We've discussed 
ex parte issues in the General Discussion of Comments part of this 
preamble. The FAA agrees with the commenter's second point, however. We 
believe all substantive comments on a proposed rulemaking should be 
available to other commenters. We are taking steps to make comments 
available to all through the DOT's electronic docket. We have added a 
statement to that affect in the final version of this section. We've 
discussed the electronic docket above, in the section on Substantive 
Changes part of this preamble.
    The final version of this section differs from the proposed version 
in that we've changed ``may'' to ``will.'' We've also added a statement 
about making documents available through the electronic docket, and 
provided the Internet address. Additionally, we made minor wording 
changes in the second sentence to clarify that this section covers 
changes to existing regulations as well as new regulations.

Section 11.27 (Proposed Sec. 11.15)  Are there other ways FAA collects 
specific rulemaking recommendations before we issue an NPRM?

    This section discusses the role of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) in our regulatory process. It also provides that FAA 
may establish other rulemaking advisory committees as needed to focus 
on specific issues.
    One commenter recommended this section prohibit the chairing of 
rulemaking advisory committees by a foreign government or a company 
owned by a foreign government. The FAA declines to add this material to 
the regulation. Many of the issues ARAC examines for FAA involve 
harmonization of FAA's rules with the rules of other nations. 
Harmonization of FAA and Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe 
rules is in the best interests of the flying public and international 
aviation safety. It is a high priority of FAA's programs. Foreign 
nations must play an important role in any committee examining 
harmonization issues. To achieve the goal of harmonization, we seek 
industry advice and recommendations by using the ARAC. The JAA seeks 
similar input from the JAA study group, a European industry advisory 
body. Administratively, ARAC uses working groups to carry out its work. 
Since harmonization is a collaborative international effort, FAA uses 
working group co-chairs representing U.S. and European interests as a 
means for reaching consensus on technical matters. This is a long-
standing practice of ARAC.
    However, FAA does not allow foreign governments to chair a 
rulemaking committee. Contrary to the commenter's opinion, non-U.S. 
citizens do not develop proposals that regulate U.S. citizens. These 
international working groups provide recommendations to the ARAC which, 
in turn, approves or disapproves a particular action. ARAC provides a 
recommendation to the FAA after public deliberation. The FAA makes the 
final decision to adopt or amend a particular rule. It does so through 
the public comment procedures outlined in this part.
    Another commenter stated that when FAA receives a recommendation 
from the ARAC, FAA should publish an NPRM if we accept the 
recommendation. We should also publish an explanation of our denial, if 
we do not accept the recommendation, just as we would do with a comment 
from the public. The FAA disagrees with this comment. The ARAC is 
chartered to function with FAA in an advisory capacity. A 
recommendation from ARAC is not the same as a comment from the public.
    For the reasons discussed above, FAA declines to change this 
section in response to comments, and we adopt it as proposed.

Section 11.29 (Proposed Sec. 11.21)  May FAA change its regulations 
without first issuing an ANPRM or NPRM?

    This section discusses the circumstances under which FAA might 
adopt, amend, or repeal regulations without first issuing an ANPRM or 
NPRM.
    One commenter suggested FAA should define the term ``immediately 
adopted.'' We've discussed this under final Sec. 11.13.
    Another commenter suggested that, while the FAA may issue a final 
rule without an NPRM in special circumstances, we should tell the 
reader that this is not our ordinary practice. We agree and have added 
an introductory sentence clarifying this point.
    This section includes a statement that an example of a final rule 
without notice is one issued in response to a safety emergency. One 
commenter suggests that we should mention in this section ``significant 
airworthiness emergencies.'' We don't think we need to list the kinds 
of emergencies for which we could use an immediately adopted rule, 
although an airworthiness emergency is clearly one of them. Agencies 
have the authority to issue any emergency rule under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. We don't need an exhaustive statement of the 
possibilities in part 11 to allow us to issue these rules.
    One commenter suggested that we limit the criteria for adopting 
final rules without comment to editorial changes or corrections. We 
believe that would be too restrictive. Sometimes we have to adopt a 
final rule without comment because of a clear and immediate safety 
hazard or for some other reason. Therefore we do not accept this 
comment.
    We've also changed this section by removing reference to an 
``immediately adopted'' rule. Commenters were apparently confused about 
this term. As noted in the discussion of final Sec. 11.13, this term is 
not an accurate description of these rules, and indeed some of them are 
not adopted immediately. We have not added any reference to 
``immediately adopted'' rules in this section of the final rule, 
although we do mention it in Sec. 11.11.

Section 11.31 (Proposed Sec. 11.27)  How does FAA process direct final 
rules?

    This section describes how FAA processes direct final rules when we 
receive no adverse comments, and when we do receive adverse comments.
    One commenter suggested that we remove the word ``generally'' from 
the reference in the section to the 15-day time period within which we 
publish a Federal Register notice confirming that we are adopting a 
direct final rule. The commenter stated that it was important that FAA 
provide timely notice. While we agree we need to provide timely notice 
of rules we adopt, and we strive to publish these notices within 15 
days, it is not always possible to achieve this goal. However, we will 
publish this notice before the effective date of the direct final rule. 
We decline to adopt this suggestion, it is too inflexible and does not 
allow us to address special circumstances.
    The same commenter suggested we insert the words ``in a timely 
manner'' where the proposal stated that we will ``publish a 
confirmation document . . . before the effective date of the direct 
final rule.'' We do not believe this is necessary. Our commitment to 
publishing this notice before the effective date of the direct final 
rule ensures that the notice will be timely. In practice, we do strive 
to publish this notice as soon as possible.
    We have also moved the discussion of what FAA considers an adverse 
comment from proposed Sec. 11.27 to Sec. 11.31. We believe it fits 
better here. We have not changed this discussion substantively. When we 
receive an

[[Page 50857]]

adverse comment about a direct final rule, we do not implement the 
rule. Rather, we advise the public by publishing a document in the 
Federal Register before the effective date of the direct final rule. 
This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. 
If we withdraw a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, we 
may incorporate the commenter's recommendation into another direct 
final rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
    We have made two additional word changes. To be consistent with the 
pattern we've followed throughout the rule, we've replaced ``We'' with 
``FAA'' in the title of this section. In Sec. 11.31(c) (proposed 
Sec. 11.27(b)), in reference to withdrawing a direct final rule in 
response to an adverse comment, we've changed ``this document will 
withdraw the direct final rule'' to ``this document may withdraw the 
direct final rule.'' We are making this change because in some cases, 
we may be able to resolve the adverse comment without withdrawing the 
rule. For example, we may publish a clarification of the rule 
addressing the adverse comment. This is a change from the previous rule 
(Sec. 11.17), which said that ``a document withdrawing the direct final 
rule will be published in the Federal Register. * * *''

Section 11.33 (Proposed Sec. 11.31)  How can I track FAA's rulemaking 
activities?

    This section lists several ways the public can find information 
about FAA's rulemaking.
    One commenter suggested that this section contained too many 
levels, and was confusing. The commenter suggested breaking up the 
section. While we have decided not to break up the section, we have 
edited it to remove excess words. This allowed us to reduce the number 
of levels in the section. This editing did not result in any 
substantive changes.
    Another commenter suggested changing the heading of the section to 
make it a shorter statement. We've covered this issue in the Plain 
Language discussion in the General Discussion of Comments part of this 
preamble.
    Additionally, we have deleted from the final version of this 
section reference to particular types of rulemaking actions that you 
can find in the electronic docket. Since we published the proposed 
rule, we have been exploring ways to make our rulemaking documents 
readily available to the public. We intend to expand the types of 
documents available through the electronic docket as soon as we can. 
Since we are not sure at this time exactly when we will be able to 
include each type of document, we have eliminated any list of specific 
document types from the regulation. We have added information about 
where to call if you can't find the material in the electronic docket.

Section 11.35 (Proposed Sec. 11.33)  Does FAA include sensitive 
security information and proprietary information in the Docket 
Management System (DMS)?

    As proposed, this section addressed only sensitive security 
information. In response to comments, we have expanded the section to 
cover proprietary and confidential information.
    As in the proposal, this section states that you should not submit 
sensitive security information to the public docket. It states that 
when FAA believes we need this type of information, we will ask for it 
and provide a separate non-public docket. As we stated in the proposal, 
for all dockets involving security requirements, we review comments as 
we receive them, and if we find that a comment contains sensitive 
security information, we remove that information before placing the 
comment in the docket.
    One commenter recommended that we add ``proprietary'' business 
information to the title and exclude it from the public docket. We have 
accepted the addition of ``proprietary information'' to the title of 
this section. However, FAA seldom receives proprietary information with 
comments. If we are aware that information submitted is proprietary, we 
do not file it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which 
the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we 
have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this 
information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of 
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT 
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
    We have changed the heading of this section to include a reference 
to proprietary information. Also, we have written out Docket Management 
System, instead of abbreviating it.

Section 11.37 (Proposed Sec. 11.35)  Where can I find information about 
an Airworthiness Directive, an airspace designation, or a petition 
handled in a region?

    This section tells readers whom to contact to get information about 
Federal Register documents originating in a region.
    The FAA received no comments on this section. However, we have 
changed the final version to indicate that many of these actions will 
be included in the Department of Transportation's electronic docket.

Section 11.38 (New)  What public comment procedures does FAA follow for 
Special Conditions?

    As we note above in our discussion of Sec. 11.19, we have decided 
that the reader may find it helpful to have some discussion of special 
conditions in part 11. This new section states that we generally follow 
notice and comment procedures and describes the situations where we do 
not do this.
    The special conditions section we removed from part 11 noted that 
FAA does not hold public hearings, argument, or formal hearings before 
issuing a special condition. Although the procedures in this revised 
part 11 regarding public hearings would theoretically apply to special 
conditions, it continues to be unlikely that we would grant a request 
for a public meeting. In most cases such a meeting would not provide 
more information than written comments. Also, it would be difficult to 
protect the proprietary information involved in the certification 
process in a public discussion.

Section 11.39 (Proposed Sec. 11.37)  How may I participate in FAA's 
rulemaking process?

    This section describes the ways you can participate in FAA 
rulemaking--commenting on public rulemakings, filing a petition for 
rulemaking, and participating in a public meeting.
    One commenter suggested we replace the words ``advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking'' and ``notice of proposed rulemaking'' with their 
abbreviations, to be consistent with other sections of the rule. We 
agree and have made the change.
    We have also added a statement at the end of paragraph (a) to 
emphasize that commenters should follow the directions for commenting 
found in each rulemaking document. The FAA intends to make increasing 
use of the Department of Transportation's electronic docket. Over time 
readers will find more and more documents referencing the docket as the 
preferred method of taking comments.
    Finally, we have eliminated paragraph (d) concerning appeals. We 
should not have included this material in the proposal. Appeals are not 
part of the rulemaking process, which is the subject of this section.
    Otherwise, we adopt the section as proposed.

[[Page 50858]]

Section 11.40 (New)  Can I get more information about a rulemaking?

    This section was not in the proposed rule, we added it in response 
to comments. It states that you can contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you have questions about a proposal, and 
describes the types of information you can get from that person.

Section 11.41  Who may file comments?

    This very brief section states that anyone may file comments on any 
FAA rulemaking that requests comments.
    One commenter suggested we change this section to limit 
participation in our rulemaking process to parties who have a specific 
interest in the process, on the grounds that this would reduce work and 
eliminate frivolous comments. Another commenter stated that ``Section 
11.41 should be amended so that comments submitted by United States 
citizens and businesses are considered before comments submitted by 
foreign governments, businesses, or citizens not holding an FAA-issued 
certificate for conducting operations in the United States. * * * A 
proposed regulation that is based on quantifiable safety data should 
not be rejected, amended, or altered simply because a competing foreign 
government believes that the proposal is not compatible with the laws 
and regulations of their country.''
    In response to both comments, FAA notes that the rulemaking process 
is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While we are not 
required to consider frivolous comments, we cannot establish any sort 
of standing requirement for who can or cannot comment, nor can we 
establish criteria for whose comments we consider more important. The 
APA is intended to provide a broad base of comments on a federal 
agency's NPRM. It is in the public interest that we consider each 
comment on its own merit. It is in the best interests of the flying 
public and of international aviation safety for us to strive for 
harmonization with the laws and regulations of foreign countries. For 
this reason, it is appropriate that we also accept comments from 
foreign citizens and governments.
    For these reasons, FAA declines to accept these comments, and 
adopts the section as proposed.

Section 11.43  What information must I put in my written comments?

    This section details the information commenters must include in 
written comments.
    One commenter suggested we add to this section a requirement that 
commenters be required to state their interest in the particular 
rulemaking. For the same reasons discussed above under Sec. 11.41, we 
decline to accept this comment.
    Another commenter was concerned about the use of the word ``must'' 
in the heading. The commenter stated ``this section may be interpreted 
to impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on the public.''
    The FAA agrees. We have divided the final section into two major 
paragraphs, one covering required information and one covering 
information which you should submit, if it's available to you. We have 
also reworded the section to clarify the information requirements. We 
will understand your position better if you are able to give us this 
supporting material.

Section 11.45  Where and when do I file my comments?

    This section explains how to file paper or electronic comments, and 
the need to file comments by the deadline.
    One commenter suggested we add to paragraph (a) ``Any other means 
designated by the FAA'' to provide FAA flexibility to designate an 
alternative method for submittal of comments. We appreciate the 
suggestion. Given the pace of change in electronic technology, it is 
certainly possible that we will develop a new way of submitting 
comments. We have added language to this effect in paragraph (a).
    The same commenter further suggested we split paragraph (c) into 
two paragraphs, one to address FAA's rejection of frivolous, abusive, 
or repetitious comments, the other to address instructions for 
electronic filing. Further, the commenter suggested FAA should include 
in the section a provision that we would provide instructions in the 
proposed rule, as well as on the web site, about how to file comments 
on the web site.
    The FAA doesn't believe it's necessary to provide instructions in 
the proposal itself about how to file comments on the web site, beyond 
information about how to find the web site, where there are detailed 
instructions. This would be redundant and add unnecessary material to 
part 11. We decline to accept this comment. However, we have added the 
term ``Docket Management System'' in front of the word ``website'' to 
clarify that we are talking specifically about the website for that 
system.
    In sum, FAA has added the suggested statement to paragraph (a) of 
this section, added the clarifying term ``Docket Management System,'' 
and divided the material into paragraphs on required information and 
supporting information; otherwise we adopt the section as proposed.

Section 11.47  May I ask for more time to file my comments?

    This section explains how you can ask for more time to file 
comments, and how FAA evaluates your request.
    One commenter criticized the structure of the section, noting that 
paragraphs (a) through (d) were not parallel. The commenter provided 
alternative language, which FAA agrees is superior. We have used the 
suggested language in this final rule. This is not a substantive 
change.
    Another commenter suggested we add ``in a timely period'' in two 
places in the introductory part of this section to clarify that FAA 
must provide timely notification of an extension of the comment period 
on a rulemaking action, and of our denial of an extension of the 
comment period. This commenter also mentioned a specific instance when 
notification of an extension request was not timely.
    The FAA declines to accept this suggestion. We must publish a 
Federal Register notice of any extension of a comment period before the 
original comment period expires. Otherwise, we must reopen the comment 
period for additional comments. This requirement ensures that, to the 
extent possible, we publish comment period extensions as quickly as 
possible. The FAA has in place procedures to ensure timely notification 
when we deny someone's request for extended time. We believe these 
procedures generally work well, and regret that the commenter did not 
receive timely notification in a specific instance.
    In sum, FAA has substituted the language suggested by the first 
commenter for paragraphs (a) through (d). Otherwise, we adopt the 
section as proposed.

Section 11.51  May I request that FAA hold a public meeting on a 
rulemaking action?

    This section describes how you can request a public meeting, and 
what FAA considers in evaluating your request.
    One commenter suggested alternative wording for this section. The 
FAA agrees the suggestion is superior to FAA's proposal, and has 
substituted the commenter's suggestion. This is not a substantive 
change.
    Another commenter suggested we specify we will provide 60 days for 
people to request meetings, on the basis that this would give them time 
to review

[[Page 50859]]

complex proposals before deciding to request a meeting. We cannot 
accept this suggestion. In most cases, rulemaking actions are open for 
comments for 60 days. We must receive requests for meetings early 
enough to schedule a meeting within that 60-day comment period. In 
cases where rules are particularly complex or we receive compelling 
reasons to provide more time, we will provide a longer comment period.
    Several commenters on this section raised the issue of ex parte 
contacts. We have discussed this issue in the General Discussion of 
Comments part of this preamble.
    For these reasons, FAA has adopted the substance of the section as 
proposed, using the clearer wording provided by the commenter.

Section 11.53  What takes place at a public meeting?

    This section describes public meetings held during the rulemaking 
process.
    The FAA received no comments on this section, except one related to 
the issue of ex parte contacts. We discuss that issue previously, in 
the General Discussion of Comments part of this preamble. We removed 
the final sentence as it is misleading in it's mention of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Other than this minor administrative 
change, we adopt the section as proposed.

Section 11.61  May I ask FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, 
or grant relief from the requirements of a current regulation?

    This section describes how FAA processes petitions for exemption 
and rulemaking. In proposed Sec. 11.61, we used a table to show how to 
adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, or grant relief from the 
requirements of a current regulation. In response to comments about 
combining definitions, we have moved these definitions to the newly 
created section ``Definition of Terms'' near the beginning of the part. 
We've discussed definitions in the General Discussion of Comments part 
of this preamble.
    We have expanded final Sec. 11.61. It now discusses the scope of 
petitions for exemption and rulemaking. It clarifies that petitions for 
rulemaking and petitions for exemption apply only to Title 14 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 11.63  How and to whom do I submit my petition for rulemaking 
or petition for exemption?

    This section provides an address to which you should send your 
petition for rulemaking or petition for exemption. As we explained in 
the proposal, the section no longer discusses where to file petitions 
for exemption from the medical standards in part 67, since exceptions 
to these standards are now handled by special issuances under 
Sec. 67.401. As part of FAA's effort to make our rulemaking materials 
more accessible to the public by using DOT's Docket Management System 
(DMS), you should submit all petitions to DMS.
    One commenter criticized the tabular format used to present the 
address information in the proposed rule. We agree, and in the final 
rule we no longer display the address information in a tabular format 
because we have made the process simpler by having all petitions sent 
to the same address. We have also reworded paragraph (b) for clarity.
    Another commenter suggested we add ``Any other means designated by 
the FAA'' to provide FAA flexibility to designate an alternate method 
for submittal of comments. For reasons discussed in Sec. 11.45, we have 
added language to this effect.
    In response to commenters questions that we did not specify time 
periods for actions, we have added a provision (Sec. 11.63(d)) 
requiring anyone petitioning for an exemption to submit their petition 
120 days before they need the exemption to take effect. We have also 
changed the first word in the title of the section from ``where'' to 
``how'' to accommodate this addition. Although we did not retain the 
wording in the NPRM, this is not a new provision. The same requirement 
occurred in the previous version of part 11 at Sec. 11.25. Because the 
time required to process petitions is so variable, we believe it is 
best not to place a specific timing requirement on the petitioner or on 
FAA. However, for clarity, we have added the 120-day period for 
submission of a petition in the final rule. While FAA processes most 
petitions within a shorter period, particularly complex petitions may 
require a longer period for FAA review. Additionally, FAA must give 
safety matters our highest priority, and this may prevent us from 
providing the relief in the timeframe requested by the petitioner. You 
can help ensure that FAA can process your petition for exemption in 
time to serve your needs by sending us your petition as soon as you 
know you need the exemption. Section 11.81 (What information must I 
include in my petition for an exemption?) repeats this caution in the 
first sentence. Other than the changes mentioned above, we have adopted 
this section as proposed.

Section 11.71  What information must I include in my petition for 
rulemaking?

    This section lists the information you must include in your 
petition for rulemaking.
    One commenter requested a slight rewording of Sec. 11.71(b)(3) for 
clarity. The FAA agrees and has replaced the word ``they'' with ``the 
burdens'' to clarify the sentence.
    Another commenter recommended that a new paragraph (b)(5) be added 
to this section to read ``The FAA will not publish information that has 
been declared proprietary and/or confidential business information by 
the submitter.'' We address this issue above under the discussion of 
final Sec. 11.35.
    Other than the editorial change to Sec. 11.71(b)(3) we adopt this 
section as proposed.

Section 11.73  How does FAA process petitions for rulemaking?

    This section discusses how FAA handles petitions for rulemaking, 
including under what circumstances FAA may dismiss your petition.
    In response to several commenters and as discussed previously in 
our Petitions for Rulemaking and Exemption preamble portion of 
``General Substantive Changes from the Proposed Amendment of Part 11,'' 
we have added a new sentence at the beginning of this section to 
preserve FAA's practice of notifying petitioners of the disposition of 
their petitions.
    One commenter made suggestions to modify the sentence structure to 
clarify the section. We have accepted these non-substantive changes and 
redesignated paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(4) as paragraphs (b) through 
(e). Additionally, we have added a sentence to paragraph (e) (proposed 
(b)(4)) to explain that, while we may have to deny a petition, we do 
keep issues that may warrant future rulemaking in our database for 
possible further action.
    Another commenter requested that paragraph (d) (proposed paragraph 
(3)) dealing with petitions involving issues already being considered 
by ARAC be revised by replacing the word ``may'' to ``will'' in the 
first sentence to reflect that ``* * * any information or requests the 
FAA receives regarding a subject the FAA has tasked ARAC to study 
should be passed to ARAC for review and consideration.'' The FAA 
agrees. The language used in the proposal was

[[Page 50860]]

confusing. Currently, if ARAC is studying the subject area of a 
petitioner's request, we forward the petition to ARAC for 
consideration.
    We have also made minor wording changes in final paragraph (e) for 
clarity.
    Other than these changes, we adopt this section as proposed.

Section 11.75  Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for 
rulemaking?

    This section states that FAA does not invite public comment on 
petitions for rulemaking.
    One commenter stated this section was superfluous and should be 
removed. We decline to eliminate this statement. As discussed 
previously in our Petitions for Rulemaking and Exemption portion of 
``General Substantive Changes from the Proposed Amendment of Part 11'' 
section, this was a major change from old part 11 procedures and we 
need to make sure the public understands this change in our procedures.
    Another commenter stated that while FAA ``* * * should not be 
expending valuable resources in publishing all rulemaking petitions it 
receives * * * there is value in the continued publication of summaries 
of some rulemaking petitions.'' Basically, ``* * * in cases where the 
FAA finds that a petition for rulemaking meets its criteria, it would 
be in the public interest for the FAA to publish a summary of such 
rulemaking petition. This would provide an opportunity for the sharing 
of added perspective on such issues prior to the FAA expending the 
significant amount of resources that are necessary to develop and issue 
a notice of proposed rulemaking.''
    The FAA disagrees. When we accept a petition for immediate 
rulemaking, it is because we determine that the issue is an immediate 
aviation safety concern and we should concentrate agency resources to 
respond within 6 months with publication of a rulemaking document (an 
NPRM or ANPRM). The public then has ample opportunity to assist us by 
commenting on the proposal and sharing its perspectives, so that the 
final rule best serves all concerned. Publishing a summary for these 
petitions would inhibit FAA's ability to develop a rule change to 
address this safety concern in a timely manner.
    Congress passed the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 
(49 U.S.C. 40101) which provides that--

    * * * The Administrator shall act upon all petitions for 
rulemaking no later than 6 months after the date such petitions are 
filed by dismissing such petitions, by informing the petitioner of 
an intention to dismiss, or by issuing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking or advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. The 
Administrator shall issue a final regulation, or take other final 
action, not later than 16 months after the last day of the public 
comment period for the regulations or, in the case of an advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking, if issued, not later than 24 months 
after the date of publication in the Federal Register of notice of 
the proposed rulemaking.

    Since passage of the Act, FAA has not published petitions for 
rulemaking for public comment, as we must make the determination 
whether to reject or accept the petition. Our present procedure of 
responding to petitions within 6 months with a denial or a regulatory 
document is timely and responsive. Also, our increasing use of the 
electronic docket will enhance public access to and participation in 
our rulemaking program. See our previous discussion in the preamble in 
``Making the Process Open--the Docket Management System.''

Section 11.77  Is there any additional information I must include in my 
petition for designating airspace?

    Proposed Sec. 11.77 lists additional information you must include 
in a petition to establish, amend, or repeal an airspace designation. 
There were no comments on this section, and we adopt it as proposed.

Section 11.81  What information must I include in my petition for an 
exemption?

    This section lists information you must include in your petition 
for an exemption.
    Because of questions from commenters, for clarity, we have added a 
caution in the first sentence of this section that petitioners should 
submit petitions to FAA as soon as they see the need for relief. We 
have also added the 120-day period for submission of a petition that 
was found in the previous version of part 11 back into the final rule 
in Sec. 11.63(d). The FAA will, however, continue to process petitions 
as expeditiously as possible.
    One commenter suggested that paragraph (a) be re-written to 
differentiate between the petitioner, the petitioner's representative, 
and any other interested party. We do not believe we need to do this in 
regulatory language. We already differentiate between the petitioner 
and the petitioner's representatives in processing the petition. If we 
are unsure of the representative's legal right to petition on behalf of 
a particular entity, we check before processing the petition. The web 
site for the electronic docket has separate fields for the petitioner 
information and the petitioner's representative information. As with 
the paper-based docket, if we are unsure of a party's right to petition 
on behalf of a particular entity, we will check further before 
processing the petition.
    The same commenter also suggested rewriting paragraph (d) to 
include the benefit of the exemption to the petitioner. When analyzing 
a petition for exemption, FAA must determine that granting the request 
for relief from FAA's regulations is in the general public interest and 
that the request does not compromise safety. The petitioner may show 
how its own interests are consistent with the public interest, but to 
require the petitioner to do so would suggest that the petitioner's 
interest is equivalent to the public interest. For these reasons, we 
decline to accept this suggestion.
    Another commenter requested that we add a statement saying FAA will 
base its decision to grant or deny a petition for exemption on the 
adequacy of the information submitted by the petitioner. We decline to 
accept this addition. The FAA currently considers the nature and 
adequacy of information supplied by the petitioner, along with many 
other factors, in deciding to grant or deny a petition for exemption. 
We also take into account information from our regional and field 
offices concerning the circumstances of the petitioner and the overall 
affect of granting the petitioner's request. Furthermore, we also take 
into account comments received from other interested parties and 
overall agency policies and goals.
    One commenter suggested we reverse the order of paragraphs (f) and 
(g). The FAA has accepted this suggestion and made the non-substantive 
changes.
    We have also reworded paragraph (h) to be consistent with changes 
in final Sec. 11.85. Otherwise, we adopt the section as proposed.

Section 11.83  How can I operate under an exemption outside the United 
States?

    This section explains how you can operate under an exemption 
outside the United States. We did not receive any comments on this 
section, but we have slightly modified it.
    First, we changed the title of the section to take into account 
that there are exemptions currently in effect that apply to operations 
outside the U.S. When we issued these exemptions, we did not determine 
whether they are consistent with the Standards of the International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In recent discussions with ICAO we 
have agreed that from now on we will file a difference when we issue 
such an

[[Page 50861]]

exemption. Otherwise, we will limit the exemption to use within the 
U.S. We intend to apply this approach to already existing exemptions as 
we renew them. We also intend to review current permanent exemptions 
and file differences, where necessary.
    Resources do not permit us to take the time to determine whether 
every grant of exemption could result in a deviation from ICAO 
Standards. For this reason, we have modified proposed Sec. 11.83 to 
provide that a petitioner who wants to use an exemption outside the 
U.S. must give us the reason for this use. If petitioners do not tell 
us that they want to use the exemption outside the U.S., or the reason 
given does not establish a need, we will limit your exemption to use 
within the U.S.
    Before we extend an exemption to operations outside the U.S., we 
will verify that the exemption would be in compliance with the 
Standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). If 
it would not, but we still believe it would be in the public interest 
to allow the petitioner to do so, we will file a difference with ICAO. 
We note in the section that a foreign country may not allow petitioners 
to operate in that country without meeting the ICAO standard.

Section 11.85  Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for 
exemption?

    This section discusses how FAA publicizes petitions.
    One commenter suggested that we add a new paragraph requiring 
commenters to state their interest in a petition for exemption. We 
address this issue above under the discussion of final Sec. 11.81, and 
we adopt the section as proposed.

Section 11.87  Are there circumstances under which FAA may decide not 
to publish a summary of my petition for exemption?

    This section explains what information you must provide to FAA to 
convince us not to delay your petition by publishing it. One commenter 
suggested that we eliminate Sec. 11.87(a). The commenter believes that 
whether a petition sets a precedent or not should have no bearing on 
the decision to publish a summary of a petition for exemption. We 
decline to accept this change. The FAA usually does not publish 
petitions if we have already published another petition with similar 
facts and circumstances and received no comments or no adverse 
comments. It would be an inefficient use of agency resources to publish 
similar requests for comments. Furthermore, the delay caused by 
publication could be detrimental to the petitioner. The same petitioner 
also suggested that we add a new paragraph stating that FAA will not 
publish information declared proprietary by the petition in the Federal 
Register summary. We do not currently publish proprietary information 
in the summary and will continue this policy in the future.

Section 11.89  How much time do I have to submit comments to FAA on a 
petition for exemption?

    This section lists the amount of time FAA usually allows for 
comments on a petition for exemption.
    One commenter suggested that we allow a minimum of 30 days to 
comment on a petition for exemption. The commenter stated that a 20-
calendar day comment period leaves the public with only 15 business-
days to review the petition and prepare a comment. The commenter 
believes that a 30-calendar day comment period would allow the public 
to conduct a more thorough review of the petition and prepare more 
substantive comments.
    The FAA receives over 500 petitions for exemption each year. 
Approximately 95 percent receive no comments; of the remaining 5 
percent less than half receive more than one comment. The FAA makes 
every reasonable effort to include comments received after the close of 
the comment period. We will consider requests to extend the comment 
period on a case-by-case basis. A standard 30-day comment period would 
unreasonably delay our processing of a petitioner's request. Therefore, 
we decline to accept this change and we adopt the section as proposed.

Section 11.91  How does FAA inform me of its decision on my petition 
for exemption?

    This section explains how FAA informs a petitioner of our decision. 
Proposed Sec. 11.91 listed what information FAA publishes after making 
a decision about a petition for exemption. In response to several 
comments, and as discussed previously in the ``General Substantive 
Changes from the Proposed Amendment to Part 11'' section, we have added 
a new paragraph (a) to clarify that we do notify petitioners of our 
decision on their petitions. We have renumbered the rest of the section 
accordingly. Also, we caught errors in the language in proposed 
Sec. 11.91(c) and (d) (now Sec. 11.91(b)(3) and (4)) that did not 
pertain to petitions for exemption. We have made minor wording changes 
in these paragraphs to eliminate the inconsistencies.
    One commenter suggested changing ``your petition'' in proposed 
Sec. 11.91(b) to ``Name of the entity for which the petition was 
submitted.'' The FAA has declined to accept this change. The suggested 
wording is not in line with the principles of plain language. For a 
more detailed discussion of plain language, see the plain language 
section in the ``General Substantive Changes to the Proposed Amendment 
to Part 11''. The FAA has always differentiated between the petitioning 
entity and its representative.
    The same commenter also suggested rewriting proposed Sec. 11.91(e) 
(now Sec. 11.91(b)(5)) to include an explanation of FAA's decision. The 
purpose of the Federal Register summary is to inform the general public 
of petitions for exemption on which FAA has made a decision. Any party 
interested in the rationale behind the agency's decision may get a copy 
of the exemption from the DMS web site or request a copy from the 
contact listed in our Federal Register Summary Notice. It is not 
practical to publish an explanation of each disposition.
    Other than the changes described above, we adopt this section as 
proposed.

Section 11.101  May I ask FAA to reconsider my petition for rulemaking 
or petition for exemption if it is denied?

    This section explains how you may request FAA to reconsider 
petitions we have denied.
    One commenter suggests that we replace the word ``Can'' with 
``May'' in this section title to be consistent with similar questions 
and answers throughout this rule. We agree with this suggestion and 
have changed this section accordingly.
    Another commenter asserts that the language in Sec. 11.101(a) and 
(b) is more onerous and rigorous than the language in old 
Sec. 11.55(d). We disagree, the language in this section was chosen to 
add clarity and is consistent with the intent of old Sec. 11.55.
    Other than the non-substantive changes mentioned above, we adopt 
this section as proposed.

Section 11.201  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This subpart consolidates and displays a chart of the OMB assigned 
control numbers for the information collection requirements of the FAA 
as required in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

[[Page 50862]]

    One commenter stated that use of the abbreviation ``OMB'' in the 
title of the section was unclear. We agree, in this final version we 
have written out the name of the office. Other than this change in the 
title of the section we adopt this section as proposed.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This part does not include any information collection requirements 
for which we need approval from the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)). This part simply addresses general rulemaking 
procedures. Any information collection requirements created by specific 
parts of FAA's regulations are addressed at that particular part.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Economic Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to 
propose or adopt a regulation only after making a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. 
standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in State, local, or private sector 
expenditure of $100 million or more of non-federal funds in any one 
year (adjusted for inflation.).
    However, if the agency expects the regulations to have a minimal 
impact, the agency does not have to perform these analyses. The 
Department of Transportation Order's DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 
procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If 
the agency expects an impact so minimal that the proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, the agency should include a 
statement to that effect and the basis for it in the regulation. Since 
this final rule revises and clarifies FAA rulemaking procedures and 
since no adverse comments were received regarding FAA's initial finding 
of minimal impact, FAA continues to expect the rule to have a minimal 
impact with some positive net benefits.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and informational requirements to the scale of the business, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' 
To achieve that goal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider 
flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their 
actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act allows the 
head of the agency to so certify. In that case, the agency does not 
have to do a regulatory flexibility analysis. The certification must be 
clearly reasoned and include a statement providing the factual basis 
for the determination.
    This action revises and clarifies FAA rulemaking and therefore FAA 
expects this rule to impose no cost on small entities. Consequently, 
FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires the agency to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis 
for U.S. standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's 
belief in the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is 
the policy of the Administration to remove or diminish, to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade. These barriers include both 
those affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and those affecting the import of foreign goods and services 
into the United States.
    The FAA has assessed this final rule's potential effect on 
international trade to be minimal. Therefore FAA determined that this 
rule will not result in an impact on international trade by companies 
doing business in or with the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, enacted as Public Law 
104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to curb the 
practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and 
tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to 
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal 
mandate in a proposed or final rule likely to result in State, local or 
tribal governments or private sector expenditure of $100 million or 
more of non-federal funds in any one year (adjusted for inflation.).
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply to this regulation.

Executive Order 3132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or 
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does 
not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

[[Page 50863]]

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this rule under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined that the 
final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the 
EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the above, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
    1. Revise part 11 to read as follows:

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

Subpart A--Rulemaking Procedures

Sec.
11.1   To what does this part apply?

Definition of Terms

11.3   What is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking?
11.5   What is a notice of proposed rulemaking?
11.7   What is a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking?
11.9   What is a final rule?
11.11   What is a final rule with request for comments?
11.13   What is a direct final rule?
11.15   What is a petition for exemption?
11.17   What is a petition for rulemaking?
11.19   What is a special condition?

General

11.21   What are the most common kinds of rulemaking actions for 
which FAA follows the Administrative Procedure Act?
11.23   Does FAA follow the same procedures in issuing all types of 
rules?
11.25   How does FAA issue rules?
11.27   Are there other ways FAA collects specific rulemaking 
recommendations before we issue an NPRM?
11.29   May FAA change its regulations without first issuing an 
ANPRM or NPRM?
11.31   How does FAA process direct final rules?
11.33   How can I track FAA's rulemaking activities?
11.35   Does FAA include sensitive security information and 
proprietary information in the Docket Management System (DMS)?
11.37   Where can I find information about an Airworthiness 
Directive, an airspace designation, or a petition handled in a 
region?
11.38   What public comment procedures does FAA follow for Special 
Conditions?
11.39   How may I participate in FAA's rulemaking process?
11.40   Can I get more information about a rulemaking?

Written Comments

11.41 Who may file comments?
11.43   What information must I put in my written comments?
11.45   Where and when do I file my comments?
11.47   May I ask for more time to file my comments?

Public Meetings and Other Proceedings

11.51   May I request that FAA hold a public meeting on a rulemaking 
action?
11.53   What takes place at a public meeting?

Petitions for Rulemaking and for Exemptions

11.61   May I ask FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, or 
grant relief from the requirements of a current regulation?
11.63   How and to whom do I submit my petition for rulemaking or 
petition for exemption?
11.71   What information must I include in my petition for 
rulemaking?
11.73   How does FAA process petitions for rulemaking?
11.75   Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for rulemaking?
11.77   Is there any additional information I must include in my 
petition for designating airspace?
11.81   What information must I include in my petition for an 
exemption?
11.83   How can I operate under an exemption outside the United 
States?
11.85   Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for exemption?
11.87   Are there circumstances in which FAA may decide not to 
publish a summary of my petition for exemption?
11.89   How much time do I have to submit comments to FAA on a 
petition for exemption?
11.91   How does FAA inform me of its decision on my petition for 
exemption?
11.101   May I ask FAA to reconsider my petition for rulemaking or 
petition for exemption if it is denied?

Subpart B--Paperwork Reduction Act Control Numbers

11.201   Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Appendix 1 to Part 11--Oral Communications With the Public During 
Rulemaking

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

Subpart A--Rulemaking Procedures


Sec. 11.1  To what does this part apply?

    This part applies to the issuance, amendment, and repeal of any 
regulation for which FAA (``we'') follows public rulemaking procedures 
under the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') (5 U.S.C. 553).

Definition of Terms


Sec. 11.3  What is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking?

    An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) tells the public 
that FAA is considering an area for rulemaking and requests written 
comments on the appropriate scope of the rulemaking or on specific 
topics. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking may or may not include 
the text of potential changes to a regulation.


Sec. 11.5  What is a notice of proposed rulemaking?

    A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes FAA's specific 
regulatory changes for public comment and contains supporting 
information. It includes proposed regulatory text.


Sec. 11.7  What is a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking?

    On occasion, FAA may decide that it needs more information on an 
issue, or that we should take a different approach than we proposed. 
Also, we may want to follow a commenter's suggestion that goes beyond 
the scope of the original proposed rule. In these cases, FAA may issue 
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to give the public 
an opportunity to comment further or to give us more information.


Sec. 11.9  What is a final rule?

    A final rule sets out new or revised requirements and their 
effective date. It also may remove requirements. When preceded by an 
NPRM, a final rule will also identify significant substantive issues 
raised by commenters in response to the NPRM and will give the agency's 
response.


Sec. 11.11  What is a final rule with request for comments?

    A final rule with request for comment is a rule that the FAA issues 
in final (with an effective date) that invites public comment on the 
rule. We usually do this when we have not first issued an ANPRM or 
NPRM, because we have found that doing so would be impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We give our reasons 
for our determination in the preamble. The comment period often ends 
after the effective date of the rule. A final rule not preceded by an 
ANPRM or NPRM is commonly called an ``immediately adopted final rule.'' 
We invite comments on these rules only if we think that we will receive 
useful information. For example, we would not invite comments when we 
are just making an editorial clarification or correction.

[[Page 50864]]

Sec. 11.13  What is a direct final rule?

    A direct final rule is a type of final rule with request for 
comments. Our reason for issuing a direct final rule without an NPRM is 
that we would not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so an 
NPRM is unnecessary. However, to be certain that we are correct, we set 
the comment period to end before the effective date. If we receive an 
adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, we then 
withdraw the final rule before it becomes effective and may issue an 
NPRM.


Sec. 11.15  What is a petition for exemption?

    A petition for exemption is a request to FAA by an individual or 
entity asking for relief from the requirements of a current regulation.


Sec. 11.17  What is a petition for rulemaking?

    A petition for rulemaking is a request to FAA by an individual or 
entity asking the FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation.


Sec. 11.19  What is a special condition?

    A special condition is a regulation that applies to a particular 
aircraft design. The FAA issues special conditions when we find that 
the airworthiness regulations for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or 
propeller design do not contain adequate or appropriate safety 
standards, because of a novel or unusual design feature.

General


Sec. 11.21  What are the most common kinds of rulemaking actions for 
which FAA follows the Administrative Procedure Act?

    FAA follows the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedures for 
these common types of rules:
    (a) Rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations;
    (b) Airworthiness directives issued under part 39 of this chapter; 
and
    (c) Airspace Designations issued under various parts of this 
chapter.


Sec. 11.23  Does FAA follow the same procedures in issuing all types of 
rules?

    Yes, in general, FAA follows the same procedures for all rule 
types. There are some differences as to which FAA official has 
authority to issue each type, and where you send petitions for FAA to 
adopt, amend, or repeal each type. Assume that the procedures in this 
subpart apply to all rules, except where we specify otherwise.


Sec. 11.25  How does FAA issue rules?

    (a) The FAA uses APA rulemaking procedures to adopt, amend, or 
repeal regulations. To propose or adopt a new regulation, or to change 
a current regulation, FAA will issue one or more of the following 
documents. We publish these rulemaking documents in the Federal 
Register unless we name and personally serve a copy of a rule on every 
person subject to it. We also make all documents available to the 
public by posting them in the Department of Transportation's electronic 
docket at http://dms.dot.gov.
    (1) An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
    (2) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
    (3) A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
    (4) A final rule.
    (5) A final rule with request for comments.
    (6) A direct final rule.
    (b) Each of the rulemaking documents in paragraph (a) of this 
section generally contains the following information:
    (1) The topic involved in the rulemaking document.
    (2) FAA's legal authority for issuing the rulemaking document.
    (3) How interested persons may participate in the rulemaking 
proceeding (for example, by filing written comments or making oral 
presentations at a public meeting).
    (4) Whom to call if you have questions about the rulemaking 
document.
    (5) The date, time, and place of any public meetings FAA will hold 
to discuss the rulemaking document.
    (6) The docket number and regulation identifier number (RIN) for 
the rulemaking proceeding.


Sec. 11.27  Are there other ways FAA collects specific rulemaking 
recommendations before we issue an NPRM?

    Yes, the FAA obtains advice and recommendations from rulemaking 
advisory committees. One of these committees is the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC), which is a formal standing committee 
comprised of representatives of aviation associations and industry, 
consumer groups, and interested individuals. In conducting its 
activities, ARAC complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
the direction of FAA. We task ARAC with providing us with recommended 
rulemaking actions dealing with specific areas and problems. If we 
accept an ARAC recommendation to change an FAA rule, we ordinarily 
publish an NPRM using the procedures in this part. The FAA may 
establish other rulemaking advisory committees as needed to focus on 
specific issues for a limited period of time.


Sec. 11.29  May FAA change its regulations without first issuing an 
ANPRM or NPRM?

    The FAA normally adds or changes a regulation by issuing a final 
rule after an NPRM. However, FAA may adopt, amend, or repeal 
regulations without first issuing an ANPRM or NPRM in the following 
situations:
    (a) We may issue a final rule without first requesting public 
comment if, for good cause, we find that an NPRM is impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We place that finding 
and a brief statement of the reasons for it in the final rule. For 
example, we may issue a final rule in response to a safety emergency.
    (b) If an NPRM would be unnecessary because we do not expect to 
receive adverse comment, we may issue a direct final rule.


Sec. 11.31  How does FAA process direct final rules?

    (a) A direct final rule will take effect on a specified date unless 
FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse 
comment within the comment period--generally 60 days after the direct 
final rule is published in the Federal Register. An adverse comment 
explains why a rule would be inappropriate, or would be ineffective or 
unacceptable without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying 
premise or approach. Under the direct final rule process, we do not 
consider the following types of comments to be adverse:
    (1) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the 
change in the direct final rule at issue. We consider the comment 
adverse, however, if the commenter states why the direct final rule 
would be ineffective without the change.
    (2) A frivolous or insubstantial comment.
    (b) If FAA has not received an adverse comment or notice of intent 
to file an adverse comment, we will publish a confirmation document in 
the Federal Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period 
closes. The confirmation document tells the public the effective date 
of the rule.
    (c) If we receive an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an 
adverse comment, we will advise the public by publishing a document in 
the Federal Register before the effective date of the direct final 
rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in 
part. If we withdraw a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, 
we may incorporate the commenter's recommendation into another direct 
final rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 50865]]

Sec. 11.33  How can I track FAA's rulemaking activities?

    The best ways to track FAA's rulemaking activities are with the 
docket number or the regulation identifier number.
    (a) Docket number. We assign a docket number to each rulemaking 
proceeding. Each rulemaking document FAA issues in a particular 
rulemaking proceeding, as well as public comments on the proceeding, 
will display the same docket number. This number allows you to search 
DOT's Docket Management System (DMS) for information on most rulemaking 
proceedings. You can view and copy docket materials during regular 
business hours at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Plaza Level 
401, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Or you can view 
and download docketed materials through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. If you can't find the material in the electronic docket, 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the 
document you are interested in.
    (b) Regulation identifier number. DOT publishes a semiannual agenda 
of all current and projected DOT rulemakings, reviews of existing 
regulations, and completed actions. This semiannual agenda appears in 
the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal 
Register in April and October of each year. The semiannual agenda tells 
the public about DOT's--including FAA's--regulatory activities. DOT 
assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each individual 
rulemaking proceeding in the semiannual agenda. This number appears on 
all rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register and makes it 
easy for you to track those rulemaking proceedings in both the Federal 
Register and the semiannual regulatory agenda.


Sec. 11.35  Does FAA include sensitive security information and 
proprietary information in the Docket Management System (DMS)?

    (a) Sensitive security information. You should not submit sensitive 
security information to the rulemaking docket, unless you are invited 
to do so in our request for comments. If we ask for this information, 
we will tell you in the specific document how to submit this 
information, and we will provide a separate non-public docket for it. 
For all proposed rule changes involving civil aviation security, we 
review comments as we receive them, before they are placed in the 
docket. If we find that a comment contains sensitive security 
information, we remove that information before placing the comment in 
the general docket.
    (b) Proprietary information. When we are aware of proprietary 
information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We 
hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, 
and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive 
a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other 
request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process 
such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.


Sec. 11.37  Where can I find information about an Airworthiness 
Directive, an airspace designation, or a petition handled in a region?

    The FAA includes most documents concerning Airworthiness 
Directives, airspace designations, or petitions handled in a region in 
the electronic docket. If the information isn't in the docket, contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the Federal 
Register document about the action.


Sec. 11.38  What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for 
Special Conditions?

    Even though the Administrative Procedure Act does not require 
notice and comment for rules of particular applicability, FAA does 
publish proposed special conditions for comment. In the following 
circumstances we may not invite comment before we issue a special 
condition. If we don't, we will invite comment when we publish the 
final special condition.
    (a) The FAA considers prior notice to be impracticable if issuing a 
design approval would significantly delay delivery of the affected 
aircraft. We consider such a delay to be contrary to the public 
interest.
    (b) The FAA considers prior notice to be unnecessary if we have 
provided previous opportunities to comment on substantially identical 
proposed special conditions, and we are satisfied that new comments are 
unlikely.


Sec. 11.39  How may I participate in FAA's rulemaking process?

    You may participate in FAA's rulemaking process by doing any of the 
following:
    (a) File written comments on any rulemaking document that asks for 
comments, including an ANPRM, NPRM, SNPRM, a final rule with request 
for comments, or a direct final rule. Follow the directions for 
commenting found in each rulemaking document.
    (b) Ask that we hold a public meeting on any rulemaking, and 
participate in any public meeting that we hold.
    (c) File a petition for rulemaking that asks us to adopt, amend, or 
repeal a regulation.


Sec. 11.40  Can I get more information about a rulemaking?

    You can contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT in the preamble of a rule. That person can explain the meaning 
and intent of a proposed rule, the technical aspects of a document, the 
terminology in a document, and can tell you our published schedule for 
the rulemaking process. We cannot give you information that is not 
already available to other members of the public. Department of 
Transportation policy on oral communications with the public during 
rulemaking appears in appendix 1 of this part.

Written Comments


Sec. 11.41  Who may file comments?

    Anyone may file written comments about proposals and final rules 
that request public comments.


Sec. 11.43  What information must I put in my written comments?

    (a) Your written comments must be in English and must contain the 
following:
    (1) The docket number of the rulemaking document you are commenting 
on, clearly set out at the beginning of your comments.
    (2) Your name and mailing address, and, if you wish, other contact 
information, such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address.
    (3) Your information, views, or arguments, following the 
instructions for participation in the rulemaking document on which you 
are commenting.
    (b) You should also include all material relevant to any statement 
of fact or argument in your comments, to the extent that the material 
is available to you and reasonable for you to submit. Include a copy of 
the title page of the document. Whether or not you submit a copy of the 
material to which you refer, you should indicate specific places in the 
material that support your position.


Sec. 11.45  Where and when do I file my comments?

    (a) Send your comments to the location specified in the rulemaking 
document on which you are commenting. If you are asked to send your 
comments to the Docket Management System, you may send them in either 
of the following ways:
    (1) By mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Management

[[Page 50866]]

System, 400 7th Street, SW., Plaza Level 401, Washington, DC 20591.
    (2) Through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov/.
    (3) In any other manner designated by FAA.
    (b) Make sure that your comments reach us by the deadline set out 
in the rulemaking document on which you are commenting. We will 
consider late-filed comments to the extent possible only if they do not 
significantly delay the rulemaking process.
    (c) We may reject your paper or electronic comments if they are 
frivolous, abusive, or repetitious. We may reject comments you file 
electronically if you do not follow the electronic filing instructions 
at the Docket Management System web site.


Sec. 11.47  May I ask for more time to file my comments?

    Yes, if FAA grants your request for more time to file comments, we 
grant all persons the same amount of time. We will notify the public of 
the extension by a document in the Federal Register. If FAA denies your 
request, we will notify you of the denial. To ask for more time, you 
must file a written or electronic request for extension at least 10 
days before the end of the comment period. Your letter or message 
must--
    (a) Show the docket number of the rule at the top of the first 
page;
    (b) State, at the beginning, that you are requesting an extension 
of the comment period;
    (c) Show that you have good cause for the extension and that an 
extension is in the public interest;
    (d) Be sent to the address specified for comments in the rulemaking 
document on which you are commenting.

Public Meetings and Other Proceedings


Sec. 11.51  May I request that FAA hold a public meeting on a 
rulemaking action?

    Yes, you may request that we hold a public meeting. FAA holds a 
public meeting when we need more than written comments to make a fully 
informed decision. Submit your written request to the address specified 
in the rulemaking document on which you are commenting. Specify at the 
top of your letter or message that you are requesting that the agency 
hold a public meeting. Submit your request no later than 30 days after 
our rulemaking notice. If we find good cause for a meeting, we will 
notify you and publish a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register.


Sec. 11.53  What takes place at a public meeting?

    A public meeting is a non-adversarial, fact-finding proceeding 
conducted by an FAA representative. Public meetings are announced in 
the Federal Register. We invite interested persons to attend and to 
present their views to the agency on specific issues. There are no 
formal pleadings and no adverse parties, and any regulation issued 
afterward is not necessarily based exclusively on the record of the 
meeting.

Petitions for Rulemaking and for Exemption


Sec. 11.61  May I ask FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, or 
grant relief from the requirements of a current regulation?

    (a) Using a petition for rulemaking, you may ask FAA to add a new 
regulation to title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) or 
ask FAA to amend or repeal a current regulation in 14 CFR.
    (b) Using a petition for exemption, you may ask FAA to grant you 
relief from current regulations in 14 CFR.


Sec. 11.63  How and to whom do I submit my petition for rulemaking or 
petition for exemption?

    (a) For paper submissions, send the original signed copy of your 
petition for rulemaking or exemption to this address: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Management System, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 
PL 401, Washington, DC 20591-0001.
    (b) For electronic submissions, submit your petition to FAA through 
the Internet using the Docket Management System web site at this 
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov/.
    (c) In the future, FAA may designate other means by which you can 
submit petitions.
    (d) Submit your petition for exemption 120 days before you need the 
exemption to take effect.


Sec. 11.71  What information must I include in my petition for 
rulemaking?

    (a) You must include the following information in your petition for 
rulemaking:
    (1) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact 
information such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address.
    (2) An explanation of your proposed action and its purpose.
    (3) The language you propose for a new or amended rule, or the 
language you would remove from a current rule.
    (4) An explanation of why your proposed action would be in the 
public interest.
    (5) Information and arguments that support your proposed action, 
including relevant technical and scientific data available to you.
    (6) Any specific facts or circumstances that support or demonstrate 
the need for the action you propose.
    (b) In the process of considering your petition, we may ask that 
you provide information or data available to you about the following:
    (1) The costs and benefits of your proposed action to society in 
general, and identifiable groups within society in particular.
    (2) The regulatory burden of your proposed action on small 
businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, and 
Indian tribes.
    (3) The recordkeeping and reporting burdens of your proposed action 
and whom the burdens would affect.
    (4) The effect of your proposed action on the quality of the 
natural and social environments.


Sec. 11.73  How does FAA process petitions for rulemaking?

    After we have determined the disposition of your petition, we will 
contact you in writing about our decision. The FAA may respond to your 
petition for rulemaking in one of the following ways:
    (a) If we determine that your petition justifies our taking the 
action you suggest, we may issue an NPRM or ANPRM. We will do so no 
later than 6 months after the date we receive your petition. In making 
our decision, we consider:
    (1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;
    (2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and
    (3) The resources we have available to address these issues.
    (b) If we have issued an ANPRM or NPRM on the subject matter of 
your petition, we will consider your arguments for a rule change as a 
comment in connection with the rulemaking proceeding. We will not treat 
your petition as a separate action.
    (c) If we have begun a rulemaking project in the subject area of 
your petition, we will consider your comments and arguments for a rule 
change as part of that project. We will not treat your petition as a 
separate action.
    (d) If we have tasked ARAC to study the general subject area of 
your petition, we will ask ARAC to review and evaluate your proposed 
action. We will not treat your petition as a separate action.
    (e) If we determine that the issues you identify in your petition 
may have merit, but do not address an immediate safety concern or 
cannot be addressed because of other priorities and resource 
constraints, we may dismiss your petition. Your comments and arguments

[[Page 50867]]

for a rule change will be placed in a database, which we will examine 
when we consider future rulemaking.


Sec. 11.75  Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for rulemaking?

    Generally, FAA does not invite public comment on petitions for 
rulemaking.


Sec. 11.77  Is there any additional information I must include in my 
petition for designating airspace?

    In petitions asking FAA to establish, amend, or repeal a 
designation of airspace, including special use airspace, you must 
include all the information specified by Sec. 11.71 and also:
    (a) The location and a description of the airspace you want 
assigned or designated;
    (b) A complete description of the activity or use to be made of 
that airspace, including a detailed description of the type, volume, 
duration, time, and place of the operations to be conducted in the 
area;
    (c) A description of the air navigation, air traffic control, 
surveillance, and communication facilities available and to be provided 
if we grant the designation; and
    (d) The name and location of the agency, office, facility, or 
person who would have authority to permit the use of the airspace when 
it was not in use for the purpose to which you want it assigned.


Sec. 11.81  What information must I include in my petition for an 
exemption?

    You must include the following information in your petition for an 
exemption and submit it to FAA as soon as you know you need an 
exemption.
    (a) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact 
information such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address;
    (b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek 
an exemption;
    (c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the 
relief;
    (d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public 
interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole;
    (e) The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely 
affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at 
least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the 
exemption;
    (f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating:
    (1) The rule from which you seek the exemption; and
    (2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek;
    (g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to 
support your request; and
    (h) If you want to exercise the privileges of your exemption 
outside the United States, the reason why you need to do so.


Sec. 11.83  How can I operate under an exemption outside the United 
States?

    If you want to be able to operate under your exemption outside the 
United States, you must request this when you petition for relief and 
give us the reason for this use. If you do not provide your reason or 
we determine that it does not justify this relief, we will limit your 
exemption to use within the United States. Before we extend your 
exemption for use outside the United States, we will verify that the 
exemption would be in compliance with the Standards of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). If it would not, but 
we still believe it would be in the public interest to allow you to do 
so, we will file a difference with ICAO. However, a foreign country 
still may not allow you to operate in that country without meeting the 
ICAO standard.


Sec. 11.85  Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for exemption?

    Yes, FAA publishes information about petitions for exemption in the 
Federal Register. The information includes--
    (a) The docket number of the petition;
    (b) The citation to the rule or rules from which the petitioner 
requested relief;
    (c) The name of the petitioner;
    (d) The petitioner's summary of the action requested and the 
reasons for requesting it; and
    (e) A request for comments to assist FAA in evaluating the 
petition.


Sec. 11.87  Are there circumstances in which FAA may decide not to 
publish a summary of my petition for exemption?

    The FAA may not publish a summary of your petition for exemption 
and request comments if you present or we find good cause why we should 
not delay action on your petition. The factors we consider in deciding 
not to request comment include:
    (a) Whether granting your petition would set a precedent.
    (b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions granted 
previously.
    (c) Whether our delaying action on your petition would affect you 
adversely.
    (d) Whether you filed your petition in a timely manner.


Sec. 11.89  How much time do I have to submit comments to FAA on a 
petition for exemption?

    The FAA states the specific time allowed for comments in the 
Federal Register notice about the petition. We usually allow 20 days to 
comment on a petition for exemption.


Sec. 11.91  How does FAA inform me of its decision on my petition for 
exemption?

    (a) The FAA will notify you in writing about its decision on your 
petition.
    (b) The FAA publishes a summary in the Federal Register that 
includes--
    (1) The docket number of your petition;
    (2) Your name;
    (3) The citation to the rules from which you requested relief;
    (4) A brief description of the general nature of the relief 
requested;
    (5) Whether FAA granted or denied the request;
    (6) The date of FAA's decision; and
    (7) An exemption number.


Sec. 11.101  May I ask FAA to reconsider my petition for rulemaking or 
petition for exemption if it is denied?

    Yes, you may petition FAA to reconsider your petition denial. You 
must submit your request to the address to which you sent your original 
petition, and FAA must receive it within 60 days after we issued the 
denial. For us to accept your petition, show the following:
    (a) That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not 
present it in your original petition;
    (b) That we made an important factual error in our denial of your 
original petition; or
    (c) That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or 
precedent.

Subpart B--Paperwork Reduction Act Control Numbers


Sec. 11.201  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (a) The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) 
requires FAA to get approval from OMB for our information collection 
activities, and to list a record of those approvals in the Federal 
Register. This subpart lists the control numbers OMB assigned to FAA's 
information collection activities.
    (b) The table listing OMB control numbers assigned to FAA's 
information collection activities follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  14 CFR part or  section identified and
                 described                   Current OMB control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 14...................................  2120-0539
Part 17...................................  2120-0632

[[Page 50868]]

 
Part 21...................................  2120-0018, 2120-0552
Part 34...................................  2120-0508
Part 39...................................  2120-0056
Part 43...................................  2120-0020
Part 45...................................  2120-0508
Part 47...................................  2120-0024, 2120-0042
Part 49...................................  2120-0043
Part 61...................................  2120-0021, 2120-0034, 2120-
                                             0543, 2120-0571
Part 63...................................  2120-0007
Part 65...................................  2120-0022, 2120-0535, 2120-
                                             0571, 2120-0648
Part 67...................................  2120-0034, 2120-0543
Part 77...................................  2120-0001
Part 91...................................  2120-0005, 2120-0026, 2120-
                                             0027, 2120-0573, 2120-0606,
                                             2120-0620, 2120-0631, 2120-
                                             0651
Part 93...................................  2120-0524, 2120-0606, 2120-
                                             0639
Part 101..................................  2120-0027
Part 105..................................  2120-0027, 2120-0641
Part 107..................................  2120-0075, 2120-0554, 2120-
                                             0628
Part 108..................................  2120-0098, 2120-0554, 2120-
                                             0577, 2120-0628, 2120-0642
Part 109..................................  2120-0505
Part 119..................................  2120-0593
Part 121..................................  2120-0008, 2120-0028, 2120-
                                             0535, 2120-0571, 2120-0600,
                                             2120-0606, 2120-0614, 2120-
                                             0616, 2120-0631, 2120-0651,
                                             2120-0653
Part 125..................................  2120-0028, 2120-0085, 2120-
                                             0616, 2120-0651
Part 129..................................  2120-0028, 2120-0536, 2120-
                                             0616, 2120-0638
Part 133..................................  2120-0044
Part 135..................................  2120-0003, 2120-0028, 2120-
                                             0039, 2120-0535, 2120-0571,
                                             2120-0600, 2120-0606, 2120-
                                             0614, 2120-0616, 2120-0620,
                                             2120-0631, 2120-0653
Part 137..................................  2120-0049
Part 139..................................  2120-0045, 2120-0063
Part 141..................................  2120-0009
Part 142..................................  2120-0570
Part 145..................................  2120-0003, 2120-0010, 2120-
                                             0571
Part 147..................................  2120-0040
Part 150..................................  2120-0517
Part 157..................................  2120-0036
Part 158..................................  2120-0557
Part 161..................................  2120-0563
Part 171..................................  2120-0014
Part 183..................................  2120-0033, 2120-0604
Part 193..................................  2120-0646
Part 198..................................  2120-0514
Part 400..................................  2120-0643, 2120-0644, 0649
Part 401..................................  2120-0608
Part 440..................................  2120-0601
SFAR 36...................................  2120-0507
SFAR 64...................................  2120-0573
SFAR 71...................................  2120-0620
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 to Part 11--Oral Communications With the Public During 
Rulemaking

1. What is an ex parte contact?

    ``Ex parte'' is a Latin term that means ``one sided,'' and 
indicates that not all parties to an issue were present when it was 
discussed. An ex parte contact involving rulemaking is any 
communication between FAA and someone outside the government 
regarding a specific rulemaking proceeding, before that proceeding 
closes. A rulemaking proceeding does not close until we publish the 
final rule or withdraw the NPRM. Because an ex parte contact 
excludes other interested persons, including the rest of the public, 
from the communication, it may give an unfair advantage to one 
party, or appear to do so.

2. Are written comments to the docket ex parte contacts?

    Written comments submitted to the docket are not ex parte 
contacts because they are available for inspection by all members of 
the public.

3. What is DOT policy on ex parte contacts?

    It is DOT policy to provide for open development of rules and to 
encourage full public participation in rulemaking actions. In 
addition to providing opportunity to respond in writing to an NPRM 
and to appear and be heard at a hearing, DOT policy encourages 
agencies to contact the public directly when we need factual 
information to resolve questions of substance. It also encourages 
DOT agencies to be receptive to appropriate contacts from persons 
affected by or interested in a proposed action. But under some 
circumstances an ex parte contact could affect the basic openness 
and fairness of the rulemaking process. Even the appearance of 
impropriety can affect public confidence in the process. For this 
reason, DOT policy sets careful guidelines for these contacts. The 
kind of ex parte contacts permitted and the procedures we follow 
depend on when the contact occurs in the rulemaking process.

4. What kinds of ex parte contacts does DOT policy permit before we 
issue an ANPRM, NPRM, Supplemental NPRM, or immediately adopted 
final rule?

    The DOT policy authorizes ex parte contacts that we need to 
obtain technical and economic information. We need this information 
to decide whether to issue a regulation and what it should say. Each 
contact that influences our development of the regulation is noted 
in the preamble. For multiple contacts that are similar, we may 
provide only a general discussion. For contacts not discussed in the 
preamble, we place a report discussing each contact or group of 
related contacts in the rulemaking docket when it is opened.

5. Does DOT policy permit ex parte contacts during the comment 
period?

    No, during the comment period, the public docket is available 
for written comments from any member of the public. These comments 
can be examined and responded to by any interested person. Because 
this public forum is available, DOT policy discourages ex parte 
contacts during the comment period. They are not necessary to 
collect the information the agency needs to make its decision.

6. What if the FAA believes it needs to meet with members of the 
public to discuss the proposal?

    If the FAA determines that it would be helpful to invite members 
of the public to make oral presentations to it regarding the 
proposal, we will announce a public meeting in the Federal Register.

7. Are any oral contacts concerning the proposal permitted during 
the comment period?

    If you contact the agency with questions regarding the proposal 
during the comment period, we can only provide you with information 
that has already been made available to the general public. If you 
contact the agency to discuss the proposal, you will be told that 
the proper avenue of communication during the comment period is a 
written communication to the docket.

8. If a substantive ex parte contact does occur during the comment 
period, what does FAA do?

    While FAA tries to ensure that FAA personnel and the public are 
aware of DOT policy, substantive ex parte contacts do occasionally 
occur, for example, at meetings not intended for that purpose. In 
such a case, we place a summary of the contact and a copy of any 
materials provided at the meeting in the rulemaking docket. We 
encourage participants in such a meeting to file written comments in 
the docket.

9. Does DOT policy permit ex parte contacts the comment period has 
closed?

    DOT policy strongly discourages ex parte contacts initiated by 
commenters to discuss their position on the proposal once the 
comment period has closed. Such a contact at this time would be 
improper, since other interested persons would not have an 
opportunity to respond. If we need further information regarding a 
comment in the docket, we may request this from a commenter. A 
record of this contact and the information provided is placed in the 
docket. If we need to make other contacts to update factual 
information, such as economic data, we will disclose this 
information in the final rule docket or in the economic studies

[[Page 50869]]

accompanying it, which are available in the docket.

10. What if FAA needs to meet with interested persons to discuss 
the proposal after the comment period has closed?

    If FAA determines that it would be helpful to meet with a person 
or group after the close of the comment period to discuss a course 
of action to be taken, we will announce the meeting in the Federal 
Register. We will also consider reopening the comment period. If an 
inappropriate ex parte contact does occur after the comment period 
closes, a summary of the contact and a copy of any material 
distributed during meeting will be placed in the docket if it could 
be seen as influencing the rulemaking process.

11. Under what circumstances will FAA reopen the comment period?

    If we receive an ex parte communication after the comment period 
has closed that could substantially influence the rulemaking, we may 
reopen the comment period. DOT policy requires the agency to 
carefully consider whether the substance of the contact will give 
the commenter an unfair advantage, since the rest of the public may 
not see the record of the contact in the docket. When the substance 
of a proposed rule is significantly changed as a result of such an 
oral communication, DOT policy and practice requires that the 
comment period be reopened by issuing a supplemental NPRM in which 
the reasons for the change are discussed.

12. What if I have important information for FAA and the comment 
period is closed?

    You may always provide FAA with written information after the 
close of the comment period and it will be considered if time 
permits. Because contacts after the close of the comment may not be 
seen by other interested persons, if they substantially and 
specifically influence the FAA's decision, we may need to reopen the 
comment period.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-20481 Filed 8-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U