Regulatory Review

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