Review of Existing Regulations, 34999-35006 [E7-12285]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34999-35006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapters I and III

[Docket No.: FAA-2004-17168]


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 notice 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 must develop a program to periodically review its 
existing regulations to determine if they should be changed or 
eliminated (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 February 25, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
asking the public to tell us which regulations we should amend, remove, 
or simplify (69 FR 8575). The notice stated that we would consider the 
comments and adjust our regulatory priorities consistent with our 
statutory responsibilities. The notice 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 February 2004 notice, we received 97 comments 
from 30 different commenters. For comparison, we received 476 comments 
during the previous review and 82 comments the time before that. We 
received comments from citizens, private pilots, commercial pilots, and 
representatives of interest groups and commercial entities. The 
interest groups that filed comments include the Air Transport 
Association, the Allied Pilots

[[Page 35000]]

Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the National Air 
Carrier Association, and the Regional Airline Association. The 
commercial entities that filed comments include ABX Air, Inc.; Alteon 
Training; Apex Aviation Corporation; Boeing Commercial Airplanes; 
General Electric Aircraft Engines; Honeywell Engines, Systems and 
Services; Morris Research, Inc.; the Orange County (Ca.) Flight Center; 
Southwest Airlines; and World Airways.
    Our February 2004 request for comments asked that commenters 
identify three regulations that we should amend or remove. This is to 
enable us to focus on commenters' high priority concerns. Most 
commenters limited themselves to three or fewer comments. However, the 
Air Transport Association filed 21 comments, while Southwest Airlines 
and the National Air Carrier Association filed 5 each.
    Our February 2004 request for comments also asked the public to 
direct comments about 14 CFR parts 125 and 135 to the working group 
that is conducting a separate review of those parts to avoid any 
duplication of effort. We appreciate that commenters complied with this 
request. For the first time, the regulatory review included 14 CFR 
Chapter III, the regulations governing commercial space transportation. 
However, we did not receive any comments on these regulations.

Response to Comments

    We have organized the comments in four groups:
     Comments that we have already addressed,
     Comments that we are addressing,
     Comments that we will address, and
     Comments that we will not address at this time.
    Readers should note that, in this document, when we say we ``are 
addressing'' a comment, we do not mean we will necessarily address a 
comment exactly as proposed by a commenter. We reserve the right to 
``address'' comments in a way that is in accord with our statutory 
authority, balances competing interests, and fosters a safe and 
efficient civil aviation system. We have carefully considered issues 
raised by commenters and are taking, or will take, action to address 
those issues, as discussed below, but we do not guarantee the outcome 
of our action will always correspond to the commenters' views. With 
regard to comments that we will not address now, readers should note 
that, while we disagree with some of the comments, in other cases we 
simply cannot take action now due to competing priorities and limited 
resources.

Comments That We Have Already Addressed

    We have already addressed 23 of the 97 comments. One individual 
commenter asked us to amend the medical examination requirement to 
require pilots to report only new medical examinations that occurred 
after the last application date. Response: We have already included 
this in the instructions printed on the form.
    Southwest Airlines asked us to restructure the environmental 
assessment process for routine airspace and airport expansion. 
Response: On June 8, 2004, we issued revised FAA Order No. 1050.1E, 
entitled, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.'' The order 
establishes a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy 
Act requirements for these changes.
    The Air Transport Association asked that, before undertaking new 
regulatory reviews, we conduct a thorough analysis of the 
accomplishments of the previous review. Response: We already do this as 
part of the review of existing regulations and through the reviews 
conducted under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The Air Transport Association also asked that the FAA conduct a 
rigorous evaluation of the need and impact of every proposed 
regulation. Response: Existing laws and Executive Orders already 
require this. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act 
requires analysis of the environmental impact of Federal actions, and 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review, requires analysis of the 
costs and benefits of proposed regulatory actions.
    An individual commenter asked that the FAA control air pollution, 
aircraft noise, and crashes and prevent pilots who are under the 
influence of illegal substances from operating aircraft. Response: We 
already have regulations in place for these purposes, including 14 CFR 
part 34 (air pollution), part 36 (noise), and part 61 (drug and alcohol 
testing).
    An individual commenter asked that we allow general aviation 
operations at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Response: 
While the airport was closed to general aviation as part of the 
security measures adopted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 
September 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
has since reopened the airport to general aviation operations that meet 
specific security criteria (70 FR 41585, July 19, 2005).
    ABX Air recommended removing from 14 CFR part 39 airworthiness 
directive 91-08-51, amendment 39-7031. This amendment requires certain 
actions for aircraft equipped with a Honeywell flight management system 
that had a navigational database. The AD became effective on June 24, 
1991 and had a compliance period of 72 hours. Response: We agree with 
the commenter and withdrew AD 91-08-51 on October 5, 2005.
    We received four comments on 14 CFR 91.205(b)(12) and 121.353 
asking us to require pyrotechnic signaling devices only for aircraft 
used in extended over-water operations. Response: On December 27, 2004, 
we published a final rule that removes the requirement for a 
pyrotechnic signaling device for aircraft operated for hire over water 
and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore for air carriers 
operating under Part 121 unless it is part of a required life raft. All 
other operators will continue to be required to have onboard one 
pyrotechnic signaling device if they operate aircraft for hire over 
water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore (69 FR 77596).
    World Airways asked us to amend 14 CFR 121.311(e)(2) to allow 
certain passengers the ability to keep their seats reclined if they do 
not obstruct others' access to the aisle or emergency exits. Response: 
Paragraph (e)(2) is an exception to the requirement in paragraph (e) 
that no certificate holder may take off or land an airplane unless each 
passenger seat back is in the upright position. Paragraph (e)(2) states 
that paragraph (e) does not apply to seats on which cargo or persons 
who are unable to sit erect for a medical reason are carried in 
accordance with procedures in the certificate holder's manual if the 
seat back does not obstruct any passenger's access to the aisle or to 
any emergency exit. Thus, we see no need to amend the regulation since 
it already allows the flexibility the commenter is seeking.
    Three commenters, including World Airways, the National Air Carrier 
Association and the Air Transport Association, filed four comments on 
the topic of supplemental oxygen. Specifically, they requested we 
change 14 CFR 121.333(c)(3) and 91. 211(b)(2) to allow for a quick seat 
swap or quick leave by one pilot without requiring the remaining pilot 
to put on an oxygen mask. Response: On November 10, 2005, we published 
a direct final rule to address these comments (70 FR 68330). The direct 
final rule procedure involves issuing a final rule with request for 
comments. If we receive any adverse

[[Page 35001]]

comment, we withdraw the rule before it becomes effective. We may then 
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. We received an adverse comment 
from the National Transportation Safety Board stating that we relied on 
data that did not represent actual pilot performance under realistic 
decompression conditions. See Docket No. FAA-2005-22915. For this 
reason, we withdrew the final rule on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1688). We 
don't plan any further action at this time.
    The Air Transport Association asked that we amend 14 CFR 121.368 by 
adopting its comments dated May 5, 2003, on inspection procedures. 
Response: Chapter 10, Volume 3 of FAA Order No. 8300.10, Airworthiness 
Inspectors' Handbook, addresses these comments.
    The Air Transport Association also commented on supplemental 
inspections, 14 CFR 121.370a. This rule requires all aircraft in 
operation after December 20, 2010, to have a maintenance program that 
includes damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures. The 
Association asked that we adopt its comments on inspection procedures 
dated May 5, 2003 (Docket No. FAA 1999-5401). The regulation imposes an 
undue burden on operators and may also duplicate other existing 
regulatory requirements. Response: These comments were addressed in the 
aging aircraft safety final rule, which was published on February 5, 
2005 (70 FR 5517).
    The Air Transport Association asked for confirmation that 14 CFR 
121.393(b) allows a pilot to substitute for a flight attendant during 
an intermediate stop. Response: Existing paragraph (b)(2) allows the 
certificate holder to substitute for the required flight attendants 
other persons qualified in the emergency evacuation procedures for that 
aircraft as required in 14 CFR 121.417 if these persons are identified 
to the passengers. So the answer is a qualified ``yes.'' A pilot could 
substitute for a flight attendant during an intermediate stop. The 
pilot would have to be qualified in the aircraft's emergency evacuation 
procedures and would have to be identified to the passengers.
    We received three comments on our regulations governing mechanical 
reliability reports (14 CFR 121.703). The Air Transport Association 
recommended that we require reporting only of significant occurrences 
and within 72 hours after the aircraft has returned to service, rather 
than 72 hours after the occurrence. Southwest Airlines asked us to 
remove service difficulty reporting requirements that have been 
previously tracked by individual carriers. The Regional Airline 
Association asked that we offer air carriers the option to refrain from 
submitting mechanical reliability reports. Response: This issue was the 
subject of a final rule we published on December 30, 2003 (68 FR 
75380), with a request for comments. We subsequently delayed the 
effective date of the final rule to give us time to consider the 
comments. On December 29, 2005, we withdrew the final rule to re-
examine the Service Difficulty Report (SDR) program. In the same 
document, we adopted several amendments that improve the functioning of 
the SDR program (70 FR 76974). These amendments include increasing the 
time for submitting an SDR from 72 hours to 96 hours after an event 
occurs that requires an SDR. This change gives certificate holders 
additional time to prepare the SDR and should reduce the number of 
supplemental SDRs that need to be filed.
    One commenter representing General Electric Aircraft Engines asked 
that we amend 14 CFR part 187 to correspond with laws passed by 
Congress that eliminate some fees. The fees that are the subject of the 
comment are for certification services performed outside the United 
States. Response: We decided in 1997 not to charge these particular 
fees. Part 187 does not require the agency to charge these fees. It 
only establishes a method for calculating them.

Comments That We Are Addressing

    We are in the process of addressing 13 of the 97 comments. General 
Electric Aircraft Engines commented on the parts manufacturer approval 
regulations in 14 CFR parts 21 and 45. The comment urged FAA to issue 
for public comment the most recent version of the document originally 
prepared by the Parts and Production Certification Working Group of the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee in February 1999. Response: We 
have incorporated the working group's recommendations into an ongoing 
rulemaking project to revise 14 CFR parts 21 and 45.
    Another representative of General Electric Aircraft Engines made 
several comments on 14 CFR part 21, Certification Procedures for 
Products and Parts. One comment urged us to address international 
consortium arrangements in part 21 by allowing multiple international 
production authorizations. Another comment recommended allowing and 
recognizing work on complete products that is done by one production 
certificate (PC) holder at another PC holder's facility without 
requiring formal extension of the PC. A third comment asked us to 
clarify exactly when an engine or propeller is submitted for 
airworthiness certification or approval. A representative of Honeywell 
Engines, Systems and Services also commented on part 21. One comment 
asked us to remove 14 CFR 21.325(b)(3), which limits export 
airworthiness approvals to products manufactured and located in the 
United States. The commenter believes that this regulation is 
unnecessary and costly and does not support a global manufacturing 
environment. Honeywell stated that it should be the production approval 
holder's responsibility to make sure products meet the approved design, 
and the place of production should not matter. Another comment urged 
elimination of 14 CFR 21.147, which requires the holder of a production 
certificate to notify us of each change to the quality control system 
that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of the 
product. In the commenter's view, this requirement is burdensome, 
unnecessary, and subject to varying interpretation. Response: All of 
these comments are being addressed in an ongoing project to amend part 
21 that was published for public comment on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 
58913). The comment period closed on February 5, 2007, and we are now 
in the process of analyzing the comments.
    An individual commenter proposed that we require separate exit 
doors for passengers and flight crewmembers to prevent hijacking of 
commercial airliners. Response: The existing regulations require a 
reinforced flight deck door that significantly reduces the risk of 
forced entry onto the flight deck. For airplanes of 20 passengers or 
greater, the regulations already prescribe separate emergency exits for 
passengers and flightcrew. It would not be feasible to retrofit the 
existing commercial airline fleet with separate exit doors. Further, a 
separate project is addressing suspicious activity or security breaches 
in the cabin. On September 21, 2005, we issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking concerning flightdeck door monitoring and crew discreet 
alerting systems (70 FR 55492). This proposal would require a means to 
monitor the door area outside the flightdeck and a means to discretely 
notify the flightcrew of threats. The comment period closed on November 
21, 2005, and we are in the process of preparing the final rule. The 
existing regulations and this proposal, when it is finalized, will help 
address

[[Page 35002]]

the commenter's concern about hijacking.
    A representative of Alteon Training commented there is a pressing 
need within the industry to update, standardize, and harmonize the 
various regulations and documents relating to airman and crewmember 
training. There are multiple documents that include qualification and 
training requirements for pilots, flight instructors, simulator 
instructors, check airmen, and training evaluators. Many of the sources 
of information are in conflict with one another. These documents 
include 14 CFR parts 61, 91, 135, 121, and 142; various Practical Test 
Standards; Operations Inspector's Handbooks; and several FAA forms. 
Response: These comments are being addressed by the Flight Simulation 
final rule, published on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63391) and by an 
upcoming proposal to amend subparts N and O of 14 CFR part 121.
    One individual recommended we abolish or amend 14 CFR 121.383(c), 
which prohibits people aged 60 and older from serving as commercial 
pilots. According to the commenter, the rule is baseless, 
discriminatory, and deprives the U.S. airline industry of some of its 
most able and experienced pilots. Response: On January 30, 2007, the 
Administrator announced that the FAA will propose a raise in the 
mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots from 60 to 65. The 
FAA plans to have an NPRM out by the end of calendar year 2007. The 
public, industry, and individual pilots will then have the opportunity 
to comment.
    Another of the Air Transport Association's comments concerns 
crewmember requirements at stops where passengers remain on board, 14 
CFR 121.393. The Association asked us to confirm that flight attendants 
may leave the aircraft to conduct passenger-related business as long as 
the engines are shut down and at least one floor level exit is open 
when staffing is reduced in accordance with 14 CFR 121.393(b). The 
reason is that allowing flight attendants to step onto the jet bridge 
at intermediate stops facilitates communication with ground personnel, 
reduces delays, and otherwise promotes the efficient use of personnel 
on through flights. Response: A rulemaking team has been established, 
is considering the issues, and will recommend the best way to proceed.
    Another Air Transport Association comment concerns crewmember 
emergency training, 14 CFR 121.417(c)(2)(ii)(B). The Association 
recommended elimination of the requirement that recurrent training must 
include a module on transferring each type of slide or raft pack from 
one door to another. The Association believes it is impractical to 
expect that a crewmember would be able to complete the complex series 
of steps required to remove a slide or raft from one exit and install 
it in another in a post-ditching situation. Response: This issue is 
being addressed in an ongoing rulemaking project to revise subparts N 
and O of 14 CFR part 121.
    The Air Transport Association also requested a change to 14 CFR 
121.434 to allow the check pilot to step away during flight without a 
replacement and allow the pilot in training to remain at the controls 
under certain circumstances. Response: This comment is being addressed 
by an upcoming proposal to amend subparts N and O of 14 CFR part 121.
    The Boeing Company commented regarding 14 CFR 25.777, Cockpit 
controls, and 14 CFR 25.779, Motion and effect of cockpit controls. 
According to the commenter, 14 CFR 25.777(b) states the direction of 
movement of cockpit controls must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 
25.779. However, that regulation explicitly addresses only a certain 
list of controls, leaving other controls subject to implicit coverage. 
The commenter urged us to revise the requirements to either list all 
controls or include language describing how to show compliance for 
nonlisted controls. In the commenter's view, the recommended change 
would improve the efficiency of the production approval process without 
compromising aviation safety. Response: A rulemaking team has been 
established, is considering the issues, and will recommend the best way 
to proceed.

Comments That We Will Address

    We plan to address 13 of the comments. ABX Air commented there are 
overlaps between 14 CFR 121.370, 121.370a, the proposed widespread 
fatigue damage rule, and various airworthiness directives on the 
subject of aging aircraft. The commenter recommends forming a committee 
to coordinate and eliminate duplication between these items. Response: 
The FAA recently performed a comprehensive review of the Aging Airplane 
Program. Among other things, our review identified overlapping and 
redundant requirements in certain rulemaking initiatives, such as those 
identified by the commenter. Based on this, we developed ways to 
eliminate duplication between the rulemaking initiatives. A public 
notice entitled ``Fuel Tank Safety Compliance Extension and Aging 
Airplane Program Update,'' which was issued on July 30, 2004, 
summarized the FAA's conclusions and plans (69 FR 45936). These plans 
should address the recommendation made by the commenter.
    The Air Transport Association recommended we adopt the rulemaking 
recommendations of the Clarification of Major/Minor Repairs or 
Alterations Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC). This change would address a controversial enforcement and 
compliance issue. Response: The recently formed Aviation Safety Repairs 
and Alterations Team is conducting a thorough evaluation of all 
comments we have received on this issue, including the ARAC 
recommendations. The team plans to make recommendations for changes to 
existing policies and development of new policies.
    We received 11 comments from several commenters on various aspects 
of flight time limitations and rest requirements, which are found in 14 
CFR 121.471 to 525. Some of the commenters wanted us to guarantee that 
flight crewmembers get enough rest and to base rest requirements on 
time on duty rather than on flight time. Some suggested specific 
language that would require crewmembers to have at least 10 consecutive 
hours of rest after completing a flight. Another commenter suggested 
that we restrict the ability of carriers to reduce rest time by 
allowing reduced rest time only when delays occur that are beyond the 
carriers' control. Alternatively, one commenter asked us to consider 
the rest periods during duty in setting the rest-time requirements. 
Response: In 1995, the FAA published a comprehensive notice of proposed 
rulemaking addressing duty period limitations, flight time limitations, 
and rest requirements for flight crewmembers. We received a large 
number of comments. We intend to address these issues and are currently 
considering our next action.

Comments That We Will Not Address at This Time

    We received 48 comments that we will not address at this time. We 
have arranged this section in numerical order of the regulation cited 
by the commenters, except that we discuss general or overarching 
comments up front.
    The Regional Airline Association made a comment about recent 
rulemaking proposals. The Association believes FAA policy seems to 
support the notion that certain advisory material currently contained 
in Advisory Circulars should instead be placed into the appendices of 
the FAA regulations.

[[Page 35003]]

The justification is not that the FAA wants the industry to conform to 
only ``one means of compliance,'' but that advisory material placed 
into an appendix will somehow be easier to revise. The association 
believes we should use appendices sparingly and not to establish 
requirements. Response: It is true that we have recently adopted 
Quality Performance Standards (QPS) appendices that contain both 
regulatory and informational material. We have two reasons for doing 
so. Much of the material in the QPS appendices is regulatory and 
properly belongs in the regulations. Secondly, we believe this is a 
user-friendly approach. By having the advisory material close to the 
QPS requirements in one document, people will not have to refer to 
several documents to learn both what is required and a recommended way 
of complying.
    We received two comments on 14 CFR part 1, which contains 
definitions of terms used throughout our regulations. The National Air 
Carrier Association proposed we revise part 1 to include definitions of 
``accepted,'' ``airworthy,'' ``competent,'' and ``repair.'' Response: 
We disagree with the comment. These particular terms are used in a 
number of different circumstances in the regulations, and it would not 
be possible to write all-purpose definitions.
    The other comment on part 1 came from a representative of GE 
Aircraft Engines who urged us to amend part 1 to include definitions of 
words used in our regulations that have a meaning different from that 
given in the dictionary. We do not believe this is appropriate. Terms 
are included in part 1 or in individual regulations because they have 
specialized meanings.
    An individual commenter suggested the cost of the requirements for 
flotation equipment (14 CFR 25.801) and crewmember training in ditching 
procedures (14 CFR 121.417) are not offset by any benefits in lives 
saved or injuries prevented. Response: These requirements have been in 
place for many years. While we acknowledge the number of ditching 
incidents is low, we do not have any information that the relatively 
minor cost of these requirements exceeds the benefits they would 
provide in the event ditching became necessary.
    The same commenter questioned whether it is necessary to supply 
oxygen to the passenger cabin in the event of an emergency. Response: 
Between 1959 and 1996, there were about 40 reported decompression 
events in the worldwide fleet of large transport category airplanes 
over 60,000 pounds. Airplanes are being approved to operate at ever-
increasing altitudes, which increases the risk to passengers should a 
cabin decompression occur. The FAA believes it is necessary to supply 
oxygen to the passenger cabin in the event of an emergency because any 
cabin decompression is a serious matter that could lead to permanent 
injury or death due to lack of oxygen. While these events are rare, we 
believe the emergency oxygen systems play a significant role in 
ensuring the well-being of passengers.
    An individual proposed that we eliminate the vertical burn test 
requirement for seat cushions in 14 CFR 25.853(c). In the commenter's 
view, this is a costly requirement that is not necessary due to 
advances in technology. Response: We do not necessarily disagree with 
the comment, but due to other ongoing projects, it is not an immediate 
priority. Southwest Airlines proposed we eliminate 14 CFR 25.853(g) and 
121.215(d), which contain requirements to provide lavatory ashtrays and 
no-smoking signs in the aircraft cabin. According to the commenter, 
these requirements are unnecessary since smoking has been banned on 
commercial flights in the U.S. for almost 20 years and announcements to 
this effect are made throughout each flight. Response: We disagree with 
the comment. Even though smoking is prohibited, there are still 
smokers, and the lavatory ashtrays provide a safe place to extinguish 
illegal smoking material. We also believe the sign or placard 
requirement provides a continuous reminder to passengers of the ban on 
smoking. This is especially important on longer flights.
    ABX Air stated there is a conflict between 14 CFR 25.857 and 
121.583 with regard to carrying supernumeraries aboard a cargo 
airplane. The commenter recommended changing 14 CFR 25.857(e) to allow 
the supernumeraries identified in 14 CFR 121.583 to be carried aboard 
airplanes with a Class E cargo compartment. In the commenter's view, 
the change would eliminate the need for individual exemptions. 
Response: Because the kinds of supernumeraries identified in part 121 
are varied, and the duties they may perform during flight are also 
varied, it is not a straightforward matter to include them all in part 
25. We find it appropriate to use the exemption process to consider 
each case on merit and may initiate rulemaking action as appropriate at 
some future time.
    A representative of General Electric Aircraft Engines recommends we 
rescind 14 CFR 25.901(b)(2) as obsolete, impossible to interpret 
consistently, and having no well-defined means of compliance. This 
regulation requires the components of each powerplant installation to 
be constructed, arranged, and installed to ensure their continued safe 
operation between normal inspections or overhauls. According to the 
commenter, engines are currently overhauled when a departure from 
normal operation is observed, not according to a specific time 
interval. Also, the current large commercial transport fleet operates 
at an extremely high level of propulsion system reliability. Response: 
We acknowledge that a literal application of this rule at the component 
level has long since given way to the realities of meeting the intent 
of the requirement at the airplane system level. This regulation 
prohibits intentionally exposing the airplane to practically 
preventable powerplant installation failures. Consequently, we do not 
agree the regulation is no longer useful or effective. While we plan no 
immediate action on this issue, we may consider rulemaking in the 
future to update the requirement and provide standardized compliance 
guidance, as resources and priorities allow.
    The Boeing Company commented that 14 CFR 25.1353, Electrical 
equipment and installations, and 14 CFR 25.1431, Electronic equipment 
should be revised to clarify what is meant by ``electronic'' versus 
``electrical.'' The lack of a clear distinction between the terms has 
posed problems and duplicated efforts during aircraft certification 
activities. At times, the commenter has shown compliance with both 
regulations, when compliance with only one is sufficient. To remedy the 
problem, the commenter suggested we revise 14 CFR 25.1353 to clarify 
that it pertains to equipment directly related to generation and 
distribution of primary electrical power. The commenter also 
recommended we revise 14 CFR 25.1431 to clarify that it pertains to all 
other electrically powered equipment. Response: Existing Sec.  25.1353 
applies to both electronic and electrical equipment. While Sec.  
25.1353(c) references storage batteries, the regulation is not limited 
to power generation and distribution functions. For example Sec.  
25.1353(a), (b), and (d) apply to all electrical and electronic 
equipment. Existing Sec.  25.1431 clearly states that it applies to 
radio and electronic equipment. We are not aware of any 
misunderstanding of how this regulation applies to the aircraft 
certification process. For these reasons, we do not believe the 
recommended changes are necessary.
    General Electric Aircraft Engines filed four comments on 14 CFR 
part 33, which contains the airworthiness

[[Page 35004]]

standards for aircraft engines. The commenter believes Sec.  33.17, 
Fire prevention, does not take account of fire protection zones as used 
at the aircraft level for engine certification. As a result, the 
commenter recommends we revise the regulation to allow for the actual 
installations, with the installation assumptions documented in the 
installation manual. Response: We agree that Sec.  33.17 does not 
address fire zone definitions. We consider fire zones and aircraft-
level installation assessments to be outside the scope of the engine 
certification process and are addressed during aircraft certification. 
Changes to part 33 are not appropriate.
    The commenter recommended we revise 14 CFR 33.87, Endurance test, 
to allow the use of other test cycles based on submittal of acceptable 
data. The commenter notes that the test cycle was defined when engine 
architecture and control systems were simpler and may not provide the 
best current test for a specific change or application. Response: The 
test cycle of Sec.  33.87 and its associated test conditions have been 
revised in the four decades since we adopted them. There have been two 
major revisions to the regulation (Amendments 6 and 10) to accommodate 
the increasing complexity of the engine, airframe, and their interface. 
The purpose of the endurance test is to show a level of engine 
operability and durability within the approved engine ratings and 
limitations and to contribute to an acceptable level of safety for 
aircraft gas turbine engines. An alternate test cycle may not be as 
reliable as the one specified in Sec.  33.87. However, our regulations 
do provide a means for evaluating alternatives and approving those that 
provide an equivalent level of safety (14 CFR 21.21).
    Concerning 14 CFR 33.88, Engine overtemperature test, the commenter 
stated that the requirement was originally a 5-minute uncooled rotor 
integrity demonstration (reference AC33-3). As implemented by Amendment 
6, it became a 30-minute test which was found to be overly severe 
because of flowpath limitations. Amendment 10 changed the duration back 
to 5 minutes but also changed the focus from a rotor integrity 
demonstration to an overall hot section durability demonstration. There 
is little evidence that cooled rotors are significantly influenced by a 
75 degrees F increase in gas path temperature, making this requirement 
superfluous from a safety standpoint. Further there is no direct Joint 
Aviation Requirements--Engines (JAR-E) or Certification Specification--
Engines (CS-E) corollary. JAR-E 700 and CS-E 700, Excess Operating 
Conditions, is the closest related requirement, and it only comes into 
play if the conditions of speed and temperature can arise. Response: 
The engine overtemperature test is intended to ensure that turbine 
engine hot sections can safely accommodate overtemperature events, 
which history has shown do occur. Many years of successful service 
experience provide the necessary validation for the overtemperature 
requirement. We agree there is no direct JAR-E or CS-E corollary for 
this requirement. The FAA and the European Aviation Safety Authority 
continue to work cooperatively toward harmonized regulations, as 
appropriate.
    Concerning 14 CFR 33.97, Thrust reversers, the commenter 
recommended a revision to address the difference between fan (cold 
structure) and core (hot structure) reversers. The commenter also 
pointed out the endurance and calibration tests are almost never 
performed with the reversers installed. More often than not, simulated 
service cycles satisfy the requirement of Sec.  33.97(a). Response: We 
agree there have been a number of instances where the endurance, 
calibration, operation, and vibration tests are run without the 
reverser installed. We evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis 
for compliance. We may consider a change to Sec.  33.97(a) to remove 
the strict requirement of running tests with the reverser installed; 
expand the scope of which block tests require an engine and thrust 
reverser compatibility evaluation; and allow alternate considerations, 
other than tests, for these evaluations in the future as workload and 
resources permit.
    ABX Air filed four comments on specific airworthiness directives 
(AD). In each case, the commenter suggested the AD was obsolete and 
should be withdrawn. Withdrawing the AD would eliminate the cost of 
tracking and maintaining records. Response: In one case, we agree with 
the suggestion and discussed the issue earlier in this document under 
the heading ``Comments we have already addressed.'' Two of the comments 
concern ADs that require modification of certain protective breathing 
equipment mask assemblies. Without more information about how 
cancellation of these ADs would relieve the burden on the commenter, we 
are unable to evaluate the merits of these recommendations. The fourth 
comment concerns AD 84-18-07, Amendment 39-4915, which requires 
inspection of certain discharge cartridges for erroneously placed 
aluminum foil in the electrical connector pins. Response: We would like 
to point out that this AD does not apply to components installed on 
foreign-registered aircraft. It is possible that a U.S. carrier could 
buy an aircraft that has one of these components installed and has not 
complied with this AD. Thus, the possibility exists that withdrawal of 
this AD could lead to an unsafe condition. For this reason, we disagree 
with the comment.
    The Air Transport Association suggested we amend the appropriate 
section of 14 CFR part 39 to allow the FAA Certificate Management 
Office (CMO) to approve minor changes or deviations from the means of 
compliance specified in an Airworthiness Directive. Currently, Sec.  
39.19 requires an operator to send a proposed alternate means of 
compliance through its principal inspector to the manager of the office 
that issued the AD for review and approval. According to the commenter, 
allowing the CMO to approve minor deviations would streamline the 
process and reduce aircraft and engine downtime. Response: We disagree 
with the proposal. Alternative means of compliance to an AD need to be 
reviewed by an engineer familiar with the technical information in the 
type design to assure the objective of the AD is attained.
    A representative of General Electric Aircraft Engines recommended 
that we amend 14 CFR 43.3(j) to allow a manufacturer to perform 
maintenance on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or part 
thereof manufactured by him under a type or production certificate 
without needing any other certificate or authorization. Currently, the 
regulations allow a manufacturer to either rebuild or alter, but not to 
perform maintenance on those items. In the commenter's view, requiring 
a manufacturer to hold a repair station license to perform maintenance 
on the manufacturer's own products adds an administrative burden on the 
manufacturer and diverts FAA resources away from critical safety 
functions. Response: We disagree with the comment. The holder of a 
production certificate has demonstrated the capability to produce 
accurate copies of a particular design, but has made no showing about 
the ability to perform various kinds of maintenance. To allow a 
manufacturer, based on a production certificate, to perform maintenance 
without determining the manufacturer meets the repair station criteria 
of 14 CFR part 145 would not be prudent and would not contribute to 
safety.

[[Page 35005]]

    The same representative of General Electric Aircraft Engines also 
filed a comment on 14 CFR part 45, Identification and registration 
marking. The commenter recommended we coordinate with the Department of 
Defense (DoD) to make the DoD's unique item identification and the FAA 
part marking requirements the same for products used in both military 
and civil aviation. Response: We do not disagree with the comment. 
Currently, DoD is developing its marking requirements. We are 
monitoring their activities and may consider rulemaking once we have a 
clear picture of what they will require.
    The Experimental Aircraft Association filed a comment on 14 CFR 
47.33(c), which contains the requirements for registering aircraft not 
previously registered anywhere. The Association recommends we allow an 
applicant for registration of an aircraft built from a kit to file 
either a bill of sale or an invoice from the manufacturer. Currently, 
the regulation requires a bill of sale. In the Association's view, this 
requirement is burdensome because most kit manufacturers do not provide 
a bill of sale. Response: Invoices do not themselves provide proof of 
ownership. Proof of ownership should include language that shows a sale 
took place and the signature of the seller. For this reason, we do 
accept some invoices if they have a signature for the manufacturer and 
some wording such as ``sold to [name of buyer].''
    An individual commenter recommended that we eliminate the 
requirement in 14 CFR 61.23 that private pilots hold a third-class 
medical certificate. In its place, the commenter suggested we accept a 
driver's license and require the private pilot to consult an aviation 
medical examiner if an illness occurs that might reasonably be expected 
to affect the ability to fly. Response: Out of a concern for the 
potential safety impact of the change given the large number of private 
pilots, and in the absence of any data to support the change, we are 
not inclined to change the rule at this time.
    A representative of World Airways objected to the requirements of 
14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14 concerning security disqualification. 
These regulations require the FAA to deny a pilot certificate when the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has notified the FAA in 
writing that an individual poses a security threat. The commenter 
believes it is inappropriate for FAA to deny a certificate based solely 
on the recommendation of another organization. The commenter suggested 
the FAA set up an independent review process to prevent the careers of 
aviation professionals from being unjustly terminated by unilateral 
action of the TSA. Response: We disagree with the comment. Congress has 
given TSA legal authority to make these determinations. It is beyond 
the scope of FAA's authority to establish a separate mechanism that 
duplicates TSA's duties. Although in this one particular area there is 
a separation of duties, FAA and TSA are working closely and cooperating 
to ensure a safe and secure aviation system.
    We received several comments on 14 CFR part 91, which contains our 
general operating and flight rules. A representative of Apex Aviation 
proposed that we amend 14 CFR 91.117(c) by adding the words ``under 
VFR'' after the word ``aircraft.'' The commenter believes the change 
would allow operation of an aircraft under IFR at up to 250 knots in 
certain areas. In the commenter's view, the current regulation 
unnecessarily slows traffic flow, may interfere with sequencing of 
aircraft by air traffic control, and costs money and wastes fuel by 
extending flight time. Response: All IFR traffic is under air traffic 
control, which can specify any speed less than 250 knots that may be 
necessary. We believe the commenter may have misunderstood the 
regulation. The speed restrictions in the existing rule do not 
distinguish between VFR and IFR. The speed restrictions are based on 
the flight altitude or airspace designation.
    A representative of World Airways also commented on 14 CFR 
91.117(c), asking that it either be eliminated or restricted to VFR 
aircraft not in contact with air traffic control. In the commenter's 
view, the existing limitation may serve a purpose for keeping the 
closure speeds of aircraft not in contact with air traffic control to a 
minimum, but for those who routinely operate below Class B airspace in 
contact with, or at the direction of, air traffic control, this 
restriction is unnecessary. In fact, it has the potential to degrade 
safety due to pilot distraction while trying to determine the lateral 
limits of Class B airspace when on an IFR flight plan. Response: The 
maximum allowable speed is governed by aircraft altitude or airspace 
designation. There is an exception where the minimum safe airspeed for 
a particular operation is greater than the maximum prescribed by the 
rule. In this case, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum, and 
air traffic control should be advised.
    One individual commenter suggested we update 14 CFR 91.207, 
Emergency locator transmitters, to include the new 406MHz emergency 
locator transmitter. The change should include actual decoding and 
reading of the transmitter's identification number and GPS location by 
independent test equipment to verify the transmitter is sending the 
correct information through its antenna. Response: We disagree with the 
comment. Approved emergency locator transmitters are specified in 
technical standard orders (TSOs), which are more easily updated than 
regulations. The 406 MHz transmitter is included in TSO-C126, which was 
last updated on December 8, 2006.
    Another individual commenter suggested we create an exception from 
14 CFR 91.207 to allow turbojet aircraft to use portable emergency 
locator transmitters, rather than requiring the transmitters to be 
attached to the aircraft. Response: We disagree with the comment. The 
requirement for transmitters to be attached to the aircraft ensures 
they are on board for every flight and automatically activate when 
needed.
    A representative of Morris Research, Inc, proposed that we amend 14 
CFR 91.213(a)(2) to allow operation of turbine-powered aircraft under 
part 91 using the FAA-approved master minimum equipment list for that 
type of aircraft as the approved minimum equipment list without having 
to get a letter of authorization from the FAA. Among its reasons for 
the proposed change, the commenter noted that it is burdensome to 
require each turbine-powered aircraft operated under part 91 to get a 
letter of authorization to operate with the most insignificant 
inoperative equipment, such as a passenger reading light. Response: 
While we do not necessarily disagree with the comment, due to resources 
allocated to other projects, this is not a high priority.
    The National Air Carrier Association recommended that we eliminate 
the requirement that the FAA review and approve wet leases before a 
certificate holder conducts operations involving a wet lease (14 CFR 
119.53). The Association considers this requirement unnecessary, 
costly, and burdensome. It suggested that providing the wet lease 
agreement to the FAA before or after the operation allows the FAA to 
provide adequate surveillance over operational control. Response: We 
are not persuaded that this requirement is unnecessary. In a wet lease 
situation, the party exercising operational control is held responsible 
for the safety and regulatory compliance of the flights conducted under 
the wet lease. It is not in the public interest to allow operations to 
be conducted under a wet lease (without the FAA having an

[[Page 35006]]

opportunity to review the wet lease and determine beforehand which 
party has operational control) if the party alleging to have 
operational control is later found not to be responsible for the safety 
and regulatory compliance of the flights.
    There were nine comments filed by the Air Transport Association on 
14 CFR part 121 that may have merit, but we are unable to devote 
resources to a rulemaking project at this time. We do not view these 
recommended changes as being higher priority than the rulemaking 
projects already in progress. These comments include the following:
     Amend 14 CFR 121.335, Equipment standards, to eliminate 
the reference to an obsolete regulation;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.367, Maintenance, preventive maintenance, 
and alterations programs, by revising the introductory language to 
consolidate the regulatory requirements;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.613, Dispatch or flight release under IFR 
or over the top, to allow a flight to be released without meeting the 
required approach minimums at the destination if an alternate airport 
is given in the dispatch release;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.619, Alternate airport for destination, 
to reflect current aircraft and airport approach capabilities;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.619 to reduce minimums from 2,000 to 
1,000 feet and from three miles to one mile visibility during the 
period from one hour before to one hour after estimated time of 
arrival;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.621, Alternate airport for destination, 
to either remove or extend the current six-hour time limit on no-
alternate operations;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.645, Fuel supply, to eliminate the 
requirement that fuel loads for international aircraft operations 
include an extra 10 percent of the total flight time;
     Amend 14 CFR 121.652, Landing weather minimums, to 
eliminate the reduced landing weather minimums for less experienced 
pilots when an autopilot or head-up guidance is used (the National Air 
Carrier Association also filed a comment on this topic); and
     Amend 14 CFR 121.655, Applicability of reported weather 
minimums, to allow some flexibility when the reported visibility in the 
main body of the weather report is less than four miles.
    The National Air Carrier Association suggested we delete 14 CFR 
121.139, Requirements for manual aboard aircraft, in its entirety. This 
regulation, in part, requires certificate holders conducting 
supplemental operations to carry appropriate parts of the printed 
manual on each airplane when away from the principal base of 
operations. If the manual is not in printed form, it requires the 
airplane to carry a compatible reading device. The commenters believe 
this is an unnecessary requirement given the state of technology today. 
Response: Our view is that the information in the manual must be 
available wherever the aircraft goes. For this reason, we are not 
inclined to change the regulation.
    A representative of the Orange County (CA) Flight Center suggested 
we amend one of the flight training requirements of 14 CFR 141.79 to 
allow use of a flight training device to accomplish the recurrent 
proficiency check required by paragraph (d)(2). The commenter suggested 
allowing the flight training device on a rotational basis at schools 
that have an approved instrument course that requires use of the flight 
training device. Response: While we do not necessarily disagree with 
the comment, due to resources allocated to other projects, it is not a 
high priority.
    A representative of Honeywell Engines, Systems and Services 
suggested we change 14 CFR 145.153(b)(1), which requires certificated 
U.S. repair stations to employ supervisors who are certificated under 
14 CFR part 65. The commenter feels this requirement is burdensome, 
unnecessary, and costly and suggests that a technical lead could ensure 
that employees performing the work are capable. Response: We believe 
that supervisors must be certified to ensure they can direct the 
activities of workers who may not be at the journeyman level. For this 
reason, we are not inclined to change the regulation.
    The Boeing Company suggested a change to 14 CFR 183.29(i), which 
prohibits an acoustical engineering representative (AER) from 
determining a type design change is not an acoustical change. In the 
commenter's view, this limit is not consistent with how we manage other 
designated engineering representatives. It also requires applicants to 
provide a significant amount of information to FAA to enable us to 
determine how a type design change should be certified for noise. 
Removing this limit could improve efficiency without adversely 
affecting safety. Response: We disagree with the comment. An AER is 
authorized only to determine the noise test, test data, and associated 
analyses comply with the applicable regulations. A determination that a 
type design change is an acoustical change is not a compliance 
determination and would not be appropriate for an AER, even if the 
limit were not spelled out in the regulation.

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 many issues of importance to the industry and other 
interested parties. Some of these issues, we are pleased to note, we 
either have already addressed or are currently addressing. In addition, 
the review offers us a general understanding of industry's and the 
public's concerns about 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 notice requesting 
public comments for our next review later this year.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2007.
Nicholas A. Sabatini,
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
 [FR Doc. E7-12285 Filed 6-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P