[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4680-4682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration.

14 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No.: FAA-2000-7623]


Review of Existing Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments on existing regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is notifying the public of the outcome of our periodic 
review of existing regulations. This action summarizes the public 
comments we received and our responses to them. This action is part of 
our effort to make our regulatory program more effective and less 
burdensome.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick W. Boyd, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-23, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 5 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, each agency has developed a program to periodically review its 
existing regulations to determine if they should be changed or 
eliminated. See 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993. The purposes of the 
review are to make the agency's regulatory program more effective in 
achieving the regulatory objectives and less burdensome. The FAA 
conducts its review on a three-year cycle.
    On July 13, 2000, we published a document in the Federal Register 
asking the public to tell us which regulations we should amend, 
eliminate, or simplify. See 65 FR 43265. The document stated that we 
would consider the comments and adjust our regulatory priorities, 
consistent with our statutory responsibilities. The document also 
stated we would publish a summary of the comments and an explanation of 
how we would act on them.

Summary of Comments

    In response to the July document, we received a total of 476 
comments from 207 different commenters. The issue generating the most 
public comments is the proposed Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000, 
which we published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2000. See 65 FR 
43802. The noise-related topics most frequently mentioned include the 
following:
     Noise levels,
     Day/night average sound levels,
     Local control,
     Minimum altitude requirements,
     Supersonic aircraft and sonic booms,
     National park overflights,
     The FAA's and the public's conflict of interest,
     Night flights, and
     General comments about the policy.
    Overall, commenters are opposed to both the proposed policy and the 
growing noise problem and indicated that the FAA should do more to 
protect the public from aircraft noise. The commenters addressed the 
following specific issues:
     Reducing the current maximum noise allotment (decibel 
level is too high);
     Creating different noise levels for day and night;
     Giving communities more local control over noise policies;
     Increasing the minimum altitude requirements (many 
commenters specified 3,000 feet);
     Creating stricter regulations for supersonic aircraft and 
sonic booms, helicopters, and ultralights; and
     Banning or reducing the overflights of national parks to 
preserve the park and wildlife.
    Other issues not related to the proposed noise policy that were 
raised by the commenters include the following:
     Age 60 rule: Commenters indicated that this rule causes 
age discrimination and, because of advances in medical technology, some 
people remain healthy and fit to fly after age 60.
     Agricultural aircraft flight operations: Commenters 
addressed the dispensing of chemicals and the differences in 
agricultural operations over congested areas versus noncongested areas.
     Annual aircraft inspections: Commenters favored an 
increase between aircraft inspections from 1 year to 1\1/2\, 2, or 3 
years.
     Biennial flight reviews: Commenters stated that biennial 
flight reviews should be allowed in aircraft without fully functioning 
dual controls.
     Certification requirements for commercial pilots: Some 
commenters indicated that the regulations need to be clarified and need 
to have regulatory options for gliders, because gliders are different 
than other aircraft and some of the current regulations are irrelevant. 
Commenters also specifically requested clarification of solo 
requirements.
     Certification requirements for private pilots: Some 
commenters encouraged more night flying requirements, especially for 
training. Commenters also requested specific glider requirements.
     Commuter and on-demand flight operations: Commenters 
discussed takeoff, approach, and landing minimums and how long records 
should be kept on file.
     Drug and alcohol use, testing, and offenses: Some 
commenters believe charity airlifts and smaller flight operations 
should be excused from drug and alcohol testing requirements and that 
regulations concerning use of alcohol should be more restrictive with 
``zero tolerance.'' Various commenters also requested clarification of 
the

[[Page 4681]]

regulations dealing with drug or alcohol offenses in aircraft or in 
motor vehicles.
     Flight- and duty-time rest requirements: Some commenters 
indicated that there should be a better definition of ``duty time'' and 
its official beginning or end. The commenters suggested having one set 
of regulations instead of a set for each kind of operation.
     Instrument and equipment requirements: Commenters 
discussed certain types of equipment, such as transponders, aircraft 
lights, pitot heat indication systems, emergency equipment, and flight 
recorders. Some commenters want more stringent regulations, while 
others want fewer restrictions and some indicated the regulation should 
be deleted.
     Medical standards and certification: Commenters addressed 
medical waivers, self-certification for medical certificates, eye 
requirements and tests, and the removal of the physical requirements 
for private pilots.
     Minimum altitude requirements: Commenters requested 
overall clarification of the minimum altitude requirements. One 
commenter suggested that hot-air balloons not be restricted by a 
minimum altitude.
     Recent night flight experience: Most commenters indicated 
that the requirements for recent night flight experience are too 
stringent and need to be reevaluated.
     Single-engine certification course: Commenters requested 
that the commercial pilot, single-engine aircraft certification course 
requirement allow training to be conducted in multi-engine aircraft 
because many commercial pilots already have multi-engine aircraft 
ratings.


    Note: All comments received on this topic are form letters from 
various commenters.


    Although no commenters specifically addressed the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the National Air Transportation Association commented 
that its small business members are burdened by unnecessary or unclear 
regulations, specifically addressing the flight- and duty-time rest 
requirements. Other commenters implied that certain regulations cause 
undue economic, staffing, or work burdens for them as well. No comments 
addressed the topic of performance-based versus prescriptive 
regulations, and only one commenter suggested a simplified, plain 
language rewrite of the flight- and duty-time rest requirements.

Issues That We Will Consider for Rulemaking

    During the review of comments, the FAA didn't identify any comments 
or recommendations that require response through an immediate 
rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that several commenters raised 
issues that merit consideration for future rule changes. As 
opportunities arise, we will try to incorporate these issues into 
ongoing and future projects. For example, in response to the comment 
that hot-air balloons not be included in the minimum altitude 
requirements, the FAA is gathering data generated from flight testing 
taking place under an exemption for the balloon altitude restriction. 
The FAA will analyze these data for a possible change of minimum 
altitude requirements for balloons.
    One commenter recommended that we revise commuter and on-demand 
flight operations regulations to reflect the unique capabilities of 
helicopters. The FAA agrees that a change in the operating 
specifications for helicopters may be warranted.
    Some commenters suggested changing the instrument and equipment 
requirements. Specifically, one commenter suggested that protective 
breathing equipment (PBE) be checked before each flightcrew change, not 
before each flight. The FAA agrees. It wasn't our intent to require a 
check of PBE at the beginning of each flight. In addition, one 
commenter recommended that the FAA remove the regulations requiring 
signal flares. The FAA issued this regulation before there were radar, 
global positioning systems (GPSs), and continuous communications; 
therefore, the requirement to carry signal flares is outdated and could 
be removed from the regulation without reducing safety.
    Other issues the FAA will consider for future rulemaking include 
the following:
     Revising 14 CFR 23.1587(a)(1) regarding airplane 
performance to reference both ``clean'' and landing configurations and 
14 CFR 23.1587(a)(2) to specify ``multiengine.''
     Amending 14 CFR 91.109(a) to permit dual instruction in 
airplanes that lack dual flight controls.
     Revising 14 CFR 121.711 regarding radio communications 
because it is outdated.
     Codifying Exemption No. 3585 into the rules for 
dispatching. Exemption No. 3585 permits part 121 operators to continue 
to dispatch airplanes under instrument flight rules (IFR) when 
conditional language in a one-time increment of the weather forecast 
states that the weather at the destination airport, alternate airport, 
or both airports could be below the authorized weather minimums. This 
would occur when other time increments of the weather forecast state 
that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized weather 
minimums.
     Clarifying the language for weather minimums for special 
visual flight rules.

Issues We Are Currently Addressing

    The FAA is currently considering numerous issues addressed by the 
commenters. The most common issues include the following:
     The Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000: The FAA is 
preparing a final version.
     Airworthiness directives: The FAA will address comments 
related to proposed airworthiness directives (ADs) during the 
preparation of final ADs.
     Certification requirements for mechanics: The FAA is now 
studying this issue as a prerequisite for future rulemaking.
     Certification requirements for pilots: The FAA is drafting 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on additional revisions to the 
pilot, flight instructor, and pilot school certification rules.
     Drug and alcohol use, testing, and offenses: The FAA is 
drafting an NPRM on anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention programs 
for personnel engaged in specified aviation activities.
     Flight and duty time rest requirements: The FAA is 
drafting a supplemental NPRM on flight crewmember duty period, flight-
time, and rest requirements.
     Single-engine certification course: The FAA has 
incorporated recommendations by commenters into the rulemaking project 
on additional revisions to the pilot, flight instructor, and pilot 
school certification rules.
    The FAA is also addressing policies and procedures regarding issues 
raised by commenters. For example, one commenter suggested that the FAA 
review the redundancy in the Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation 
Program (ACSEP) evaluations and ongoing principal inspector 
assignments. The FAA is currently addressing this issue in the ``AIR-
200 ACSEP Phase II'' project scheduled for implementation in fiscal 
year 2002.
    In addition, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) most 
recently considered numerous issues addressed by the commenters, 
including the following:
     Alternate inspection program/annual aircraft inspections: 
the 14 CFR part 43 General Aviation Working Group addressed these 
issues in the

[[Page 4682]]

NPRM that the working group presented to the Air Carrier and General 
Aviation Maintenance Issue Area.
     Major/minor repairs or alterations: the ARAC will consider 
comments during its review of a task on major/minor repairs or 
alterations.
     Pressurized compartment loads: the ARAC will consider 
comments during its review of a task on pressurized compartment loads.
     Pressurized and low pressure pneumatic systems: these 
issues were discussed at past working group meetings, but were not 
included in the draft rule. The harmonization working group will 
address this issue at its next meeting.
    One commenter stated that the current regulations indicate a major 
difference between 14 CFR part 25 and JAR 25, jeopardizing the 
objective of harmonization. The FAA is aware of industry concerns 
regarding this regulation and plans to have the ARAC Transport Airplane 
and Engine Issue Area and the Occupant Safety Issue Area address 
harmonization efforts.

Issues That We May Address in the Future

    The FAA received comments on issues it may consider for future 
action, such as initiating new or revising existing guidance material, 
policies, or procedures. One commenter suggested that very high 
frequency omnirange station (VOR) equipment checks be permitted against 
an installed IFR-certified GPS receiver in addition to checking against 
a second VOR receiver. The FAA notes that using a GPS as a cross-
reference for the VOR could show a higher degree of accuracy than 
comparing one VOR to another. The FAA will examine this issue and 
determine its use as a possible new procedure.

Issues That We Have Addressed

    The FAA had already addressed some recommendations made by 
commenters. They were addressed as NPRMs or final rules before the 
request for comments for the Review of Existing Rules was published. 
Several commenters recommend changing the Age 60 Rule. The FAA notes 
that on December 11, 1995, it issued a Disposition of Comments and 
Notice of Agency Decisions (Disposition) regarding the Age 60 Rule. The 
Disposition announced the FAA's determination not to propose to change 
the Age 60 Rule at that time; the FAA maintains that position. One 
commenter recommended that the requirement for a valid medical 
certificate be dropped from the private pilot certificate criteria 
because it places a financial and managerial burden on the FAA and has 
no correlation to safety. The FAA notes that this recommendation was 
originally proposed in the Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, 
and Pilot School Certification Rules NPRM (60 FR 41160, Aug. 11, 1995), 
but was withdrawn from the final rule. Another commenter suggested that 
the FAA extend the exception to the recent night flight takeoff and 
landing experience requirements for pilots who hold more than one type 
rating; the commenter suggested extending it to pilots in command 
(PICs) who hold only one type rating. The FAA notes that it considered 
this change during the development of the final rule on 14 CFR 
61.57(e)(3); however, it rejected the change because the purpose of the 
regulation was not to alleviate the night takeoff and landing currency, 
but to alleviate a financial burden on pilots who operate multiple 
type-rated airplanes requiring a pilot crew of two or more.
    In addition, the FAA received comments on issues that became final 
rules after the comment period closed. For example, one commenter 
suggested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation perform the 
background checks for employees requiring unescorted access to the 
Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) because of the difficulty 
and economic burden that it places on the employee. Another commenter 
suggested that if a fixed-base operator is physically separated from 
the air carrier areas of the airport, it should be excluded from the 
SIDA. The FAA considered these comments during the development of the 
final rule on airport security, 14 CFR part 107, issued July 2, 2001 
(66 FR 37273).

Issues That We Won't Address

    In some cases, the FAA found that the current regulation is 
necessary and doesn't need a revision, or the recommendations didn't 
address a safety concern. For example, some commenters suggested that 
the Mode C transponder requirement be expanded in the Los Angeles 
International Airport area because of the intense air traffic. The FAA 
doesn't agree that further rulemaking in this case would measurably 
enhance the operation of the national airspace system. Some commenters 
suggested that the recent night flight experience regulation causes 
inconvenience and financial expenditure, and the FAA should reevaluate 
or eliminate the requirement. The FAA doesn't believe the 
recommendation to eliminate the PIC night takeoff and landing currency 
requirements can be justified considering the FAA's statutory 
requirements to regulate safety and air commerce. Other commenters 
suggested that the FAA revise 14 CFR 91.109 to permit a biennial flight 
review (BFR) to be given in an airplane without fully functional dual 
controls. The FAA believes that because a BFR is a training session by 
a flight instructor, dual controls for a BFR are justified in the 
interest of safety. One commenter stated that the definitions of 
``congested,'' ``noncongested,'' and ``other than congested'' areas in 
relation to agricultural aircraft regulations are clear. However, the 
commenter stated that the local FAA who takes enforcement action on an 
agricultural airplane operator for low flying interprets the regulation 
to correspond to circumstances at the time instead of following the 
regulations. The commenter questions whether the regulations are being 
followed or if the FAA is ``satisfying urban sprawl.'' The FAA notes 
that 14 CFR 137.49 provides relief to the agricultural aerial 
applicator from the minimum altitude requirements; therefore, a 
revision to the regulation is not necessary.

Conclusion

    The FAA finds that reviewing public comments on our regulations 
helps us in assessing the effectiveness of our regulatory agenda and 
adjusting the agenda, when necessary. As a result of this review, we 
have identified several issues that we will address in future 
rulemaking projects. In addition, the review offers us a general 
understanding of the public's concerns regarding our regulations. We 
intend to continue to request public comments on a three-year cycle to 
identify any necessary changes to our regulatory program. We plan to 
issue a document soliciting public comments for our next review in 
2003.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18, 2002.
Nicholas A. Sabatini,
Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification.
[FR Doc. 02-2277 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P