[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17021]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 14, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Chapter 1
Regulatory Review
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.
ACTION: Regulatory review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document summarizes the major comments the FAA received
in response to its notice requesting that the public identify
regulations that it believes should be amended or eliminated to reduce
undue regulatory burdens, consistent with the FAA's statutory safety,
security, and other public interest responsibilities. The information
is needed from the commenters to help the FAA respond to the
Administration's direction to design regulations in the most effective
manner to achieve their regulatory objective.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Chris Christie, Director, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9677.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 10, 1994, the FAA published a
request that the public identify regulations that it believes should be
amended or eliminated to reduce undue regulatory burdens, if any,
consistent with the FAA's statutory safety, security, and other public
interest responsibilities. This notice responded to the recommendation
of the 15-member National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive
Airline Industry, the recommendations of the Vice President's National
Performance Review, and DOT and FAA regulatory initiatives. The FAA
also noted that it intends to use the responses to this request to
facilitate the regulatory review I envisioned by Executive Order No.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (September 30, 1993). The
order requires agencies periodically to review their existing
significant regulations to determine whether any should be modified or
eliminated to make the agency's regulatory program more effective and
less burdensome.
The FAA requested that commenters focus their recommendations on up
to three regulations they believe to be of primary concern--rather than
catalogue all rules that they may view to be objectionable in some
respects. This request was made to facilitate the development of a
manageable overall proposal. Commenters also were asked to rank in
priority order the regulations that the commenters believed the agency
should address first. In addition, each submission was to include an
explanation of: (1) How the identified regulatory requirement is
burdensome; (2) how the requirement should be changed or deleted,
including, where possible, suggested draft substitutes; (3) how a
regulatory change would benefit the public; and (4) how a proposed
regulatory change would provide an adequate level of safety, security,
or environmental protection. The FAA also noted that specific economic
information to support a reliable cost/benefit analysis of the proposed
change would be of assistance.
The FAA received more than 400 comments from 184 commenters. The
agency has completed its initial review of these comments and is
considering each in the light of the agency's safety priorities. The
appropriate FAA program office is preparing a response to each of these
comments, and a comprehensive document containing the FAA's responses
will be available to the public through an announcement in the Federal
Register later this year.
The commenters represented:
Air carriers, including professional trade associations.
Air taxi/commercial operators, including professional
trade associations.
General aviation, including professional trade
associations.
Rotorcraft, including professional trade associations.
Manufacturers.
State transportation agencies/airport authorities.
Repair facilities.
Aviation-related businesses.
Flight schools.
Public interest group.
Intergovernmental organization.
Aviation foundation.
Union.
Individiduals.
Comments received addressed 40 parts of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), 4 FAA Orders, 7 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRMs), 4 sections of Chapter 49 of the U.S. Code, 5 Advisory
Circulars, 2 Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR), the Airman's
Information Manual, an Airworthiness Directive, an Action Notice, the
Freedom of Information Act, and the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) System.
The following Federal Aviation Regulations were addressed most
frequently:
FAR Part
Part 11--General Rulemaking Procedures
Part 21--Certification Procedures for Products and Parts
Part 23--Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category Airplanes
Part 25--Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
Part 43--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and
Alteration
Part 61--Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors
Part 91--General Operating and Flight Rules
Part 107--Airport Security
Part 121--Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and
Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft
Part 135--Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operators
Following are the primary segments of the public whose comments
reflected common themes, and the main issues they addressed:
Air Carriers
Aging Aircraft. Commenters stated that regulations that
have been proposed by the FAA to require aircraft operators to ensure
that airworthiness requirements applicable to older aircraft continue
to be met should be withdrawn or modified prior to implementation, and
that air carriers should be permitted to develop their own specific
programs for dealing with corrosion. Some commenters stated that the
FAA has over-utilized Airworthiness Directives (ADs) to implement the
aging aircraft program, and that such programs have become unduly broad
and burdensome.
Airport security. Commenters stated that regulations that
limit access to certain secure areas of airports have proven much more
costly to air carriers than the FAA had forecasted, and should be
modified and standardized.
Drug testing. Industry commenters asserted that random
drug testing should be reduced to 10 percent of employees per year,
rather than the current 50 percent.
Aircraft simulation. Commenters addressed various aspects
of simulator training and recommended revising part 121, Appendix H,
Advanced Simulation Plan, to take into account advances in simulator
sophistication and capability.
Air Taxi and Commercial Operators
Single-engine Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Commenters
recommended eliminating the current prohibition of passenger-carrying
operations in single-engine airplanes for compensation or hire under
IFR conditions, particularly for turbine-powered aircraft.
Weather reports and forecasts. Certain operators wanted
more flexibility in evaluating weather conditions at destination
airports prior to departure, and to expand the number of sources of
approved weather reporting. The issue was raised by helicopter
operators, including air ambulance services, as well as by other
certificate holders.
Maintenance. Certain operators stated that pilots who have
appropriate training but who are not certificated mechanics should be
permitted to perform certain maintenance functions such as the
reconfiguration of aircraft seating.
General Aviation
Medical certification requirements. Commenters supported
eliminating or relaxing medical certificate requirements for pilots
whose pilot certificates currently require a third-class medical
certificate. One common recommendation was to extend the duration of a
third-class medical certificate from 2 years to 4 years.
Biennial flight review. Commenters made a number of
recommendations to eliminate the requirement for the biennial flight
review, either for all pilots or for certain pilots based on their
experience or the nature of their flight operations.
Aircraft annual inspections. Commenters recommended
several approaches to relaxing the current requirements for annual
inspections, including extending the inspection requirement to every 2
years, particularly for aircraft not flown for compensation or hire.
Aircraft simulation. Certain commenters disagreed with the
FAA's interpretation requiring that a flight instructor certify
training in flight simulation in order for a pilot to log that time.
Manufacturers
Emergency landing dynamic conditions. Commenters requested
that the FAA standardize its position regarding pass/fail criteria for
transport category airplane seats. Commenters also requested
modification to proposals and current regulations affecting emergency
landing dynamic conditions criteria for airplane seats.
High intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Commenters
requested that the FAA modify the procedures for establishing
requirements for HIRF and lightning effects to enable manufacturers to
identify these requirements early in an aircraft certification program.
Airport/State Agencies
Airport Security. Commenters stated that operators of
small airports are particularly concerned about the costs of
controlling access to areas identified as critical for security
reasons. Commenters referred to what are described as excessive
restrictions on public access at certain airport facilities, such as
fixed base operators.
Airport aid. Commenters requested better access to
information on the FAA Airport Aid Program, changes in certain funding
criteria, and greater consideration to costs of compliance with AC
criteria.
Private pilot privileges and limitations. Commenters
requested that part 61 of the FAR be amended to permit the
reimbursement of private pilots for fuel and oil expenses for search
and rescue operations without requiring the pilots to have a commercial
pilot certificate.
Certain issues were mentioned relatively prominently by more than
one segment of the aviation community. These issues included the
following:
Airworthiness Directives/Advisory Circulars. Commenters
cited costs associated with compliance with ACs (which are not
mandatory) and ADs (which are regulatory). Commenters suggested
treating certain issues through the regulatory process rather than
through ACs, and also suggested modifications to the AD process,
including compliance schedules.
Flight time limitations and rest requirements. Commenters
suggested changes to pilot requirements under part 135 and to
requirements under part 121 applicable to supplemental air carriers.
Inoperative instruments and equipment/MEL. Commenters
cited restrictions affecting air carrier and small aircraft MELs and
requested greater flexibility in operating aircraft with inoperative
instruments and equipment that they described as non-essential.
Major repairs and alterations. Commenters requested relief
from various requirements of part 43, Appendix A, Major Alterations,
Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance, as well as Appendix B,
Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations.
Many issues in these areas are being addressed by the FAA in
ongoing rulemaking initiatives. Other issues, such as the harmonization
of American and European aircraft certification standards, currently
are being addressed by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC).
In addition, a number of commenters state that FAA's rulemaking
process should be streamlined and that regulatory analysis and
evaluation--the study of economic costs and benefits of proposed
regulations or amendments--should be improved. The FAA is reviewing the
rulemaking process and is examining several new methods for improving
and speeding the rulemaking process. The FAA also continues to modify
the ARAC process to make this approach to rulemaking more efficient and
better able to meet its original objective of speeding the rulemaking
process and expanding public involvement. The FAA Office of Aviation
Policy, Plans, and Management Analysis, which conducts regulatory
evaluations and analyses, is working with industry to improve
methodologies for economic analysis. These efforts include finding
means to obtain better cost data from industry, to improve the
methodology used, and to improve communication between the FAA, DOT,
and Congress on the costs and benefits of anticipated rulemaking
projects. The FAA also is participating in a government-wide project to
improve the use of regulatory cost and benefit analyses.
The FAA recognizes the value of evaluating current and proposed
regulations in terms of safety and other benefits against their
potential cost to the public. Public comment in response to NPRMs, as
well as during the ARAC process, ensure that the FAA will receive
public input on specific regulatory proposals. This regulatory review
has afforded the FAA an opportunity to understand further the public's
viewpoints and concerns about current and proposed regulations as well
as the regulatory process. The FAA expects to complete its review of
all comments received and make available a report responding to all
comments within the next few months.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 1994.
Chris A. Christie,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-17021 Filed 7-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
