Review of Existing Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. 28311]

Review of Existing Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Regulatory Review Program, disposition of comments and final

guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: As provided for in its 1995 Strategic Plan, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) will undertake periodic reviews of its

existing regulations. This action discusses and disposes of the

comments received in response to the Federal Register notice of August

24, 1995, and sets forth the guidelines adopted by the FAA for the

conduct of its Regulatory Review Program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris A. Christie, Director, Office of

Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202) 267-9677, FAX (202) 267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 10, 1994, the FAA published in the Federal Register (59

FR 1362) a notice proposing to initiate a short-term regulatory review

in response to a recommendation from the President's National

Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry.

Similarly, in early 1992, pursuant to an Executive Order issued by

then-President Bush, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and each of

its modal administrations reviewed all existing regulations.

The FAA's experience with the above two reviews has shown there is

great value in obtaining public input in setting the agency's

regulatory agenda and priorities regardless of whether such input is an

affirmation of the agency's direction or an indication of a need to

alter course.

Comments

On August 24, 1995 the FAA issued a Request for Comments on the

Proposed FAA Regulatory Review Program (60 FR 44142). The comment

period closed on November 22, 1995. Twelve comments were received. The

Airport Council International, Bishop International Airport Authority,

New Orleans International Airport, National Air Transport Association,

Air Transportation Association of America, Regional Airline

Association, Air Line Pilots Association, and the American Association

of Airport Executives all support a periodic regulatory review program.

Aerospace Industries Association, GAMA, and Sue A. Critz do not support

the concept.

The Airport Council International endorses the FAA's proposal with

a 3-year cycle and a conclusion document containing both summary and

disposition. Mr. William C. Sandifer, AAE, Assistant Airport Director--

Bishop International Airport Authority also endorses the proposal with

the 3-issue limitation. The Assistant Supervisor of Operations, Matthew

R. Zaranski, New Orleans International Airport, with his endorsement

recommends a bi-annual review process, building an agenda of the most

critical items published every year. The National Air Transportation

Association generally supports the proposal with a 3-issue limitation,

but rather than publishing a document containing a summary of comments,

he suggests the FAA should initiate rulemaking to address the

significant areas addressed in the comments. Mr. James L. Casey, VP,

Air Transportation Association of America and Mr. Rudy Rudolph, AAAE,

both support the FAA's proposal. Mr. Rudolph would like to see annual

reviews. He feels the rulemaking process should not take so long. With

annual reviews, AAAE believes a priority system could be developed and

resources deployed accordingly. Mr. Casey indicates limiting the review

to 3 issues every 3 years may not produce an overall perspective.

The Regional Airline Association supports the proposal but would

like the limitations expanded to 5 issues. Mr. John O'Brien, Director,

Engineering & Air Safety, Airline pilots Association, generally

supports the proposal and M. Theresa Coutu, Director, Regulatory

Affairs, American Association of Airport Executives, endorses the

proposal with the following input. The 3-year review system should not

interfere with regulatory obligations, limitations should be expanded

to 5 issues, and an annual status document should be processed during

the 3-yr. cycle. She also recommends that the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC) review all comments as well as the FAA.

Those that did not support the proposal included Robert E.

Roberson, Jr. VP, Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association. Mr.

Roberson feels ARAC and the petition for rulemaking process are

sufficient and does not see an additional review having any added value

to the process. Bill Schultz, VP Engineering & Maintenance, GAMA, would

like to see more focus on improving the process and reinforces the

input that ARAC is already industry's vehicle. He states that with the

ARAC vehicle in place, any further process will be labor intensive for

already scarce FAA resources. The final commentor, Sue A Critz, CFII,

AGC, IGI does not support the FAA's proposal, stating it would create

an unusual workload. She offers an alternate plan: A new form created,

which the public would complete and return at 6-month intervals, thus

creating a 6-month review of comments. On a regular basis, the FAA

would formulate rule changes based upon these comments.

Conclusion

After review of all comments, there is general consensus that

supports the concept of a review of existing rules on a 3-year cycle

rather than on any other basis. Although there were a few suggestions

for a 5-year cycle and the issue limitation be expanded to 5 issues,

due to time constraint and limited resources, the FAA has determined a

3-issue, 3-year cycle will capture the input it is seeking from the

public. A third of the commentors did not address the vehicle for

concluding the review. Those who did supported a published summary and

general disposition of

[[Page 53611]]

comments. This level of review will produce the input and support the

agency is seeking, and should not overburden the existing regulatory

process and obligations.

Therefore, the FAA has determined there is general support for the

agency's plan to conduct periodic reviews of existing regulations as a

means to obtain public input to the agency's regulatory agenda and

priorities.

FAA Plan for Periodic Regulatory Reviews: Beginning January 1997,

and every 3 years thereafter, the FAA will conduct comprehensive

regulatory reviews. The review will be initiated with a published

announcement in the Federal Register inviting the public to identify

those regulations, issues, or subject areas that should be reviewed by

the FAA. In order to focus on those areas of greatest interest and to

effectively manage agency resources, commentors will be expected to

limit their input to the 3 issues they consider most urgent. In

addition, the public will be specifically requested to indentify rules

having a significant impact on small entities that appear to be no

longer necessary or that are overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting

with other Federal regulations. The FAA will review these rules in

accordance with Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act unless

they have already been so reviewed. The FAA will review and analyze the

issues addressed by the commentors against its regulatory agenda and

rulemaking program efforts, and adjust its regulatory priorities

consistent with its statutory authority and responsibilities. Each

review will conclude with a published summary and general disposition

of the comments and, where appropriate, indicate how regulatory

priorities will be adjusted.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 27, 1996.

Margaret Gilligan,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification.

[FR Doc. 96-25419 Filed 10-11-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M