, 64469-64492 [E9-28604]

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64469-64492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28604]


[[Page 64469]]

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

Part XI





Department of Transportation





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



Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

[[Page 64470]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)






_______________________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Chs. I-III

23 CFR Chs. I-III

33 CFR Chs. I and IV

46 CFR Chs. I-III

48 CFR Ch. 12

49 CFR Subtitle A, Chs. I-VI and Chs. X-XII

OST Docket 99-5129

Department Regulatory Agenda; Semiannual Summary

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.

_______________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY: The regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of all current 
and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and 
completed actions of the Department. The agenda provides the public 
with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
activity. It is expected that this information will enable the public 
to be more aware of and allow it to more effectively participate in the 
Department's regulatory activity. The public is also invited to submit 
comments on any aspect of this agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General

    You should direct all comments and inquiries on the agenda in 
general to Neil R. Eisner, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation 
and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4723.

Specific

    You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular 
items in the agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or 
the general rulemaking contact person for the operating 
administration in Appendix B. Individuals who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 755-
7687.

Table of Contents

Supplementary Information:

Background
Significant/Priority Rulemakings
Explanation of Information on the Agenda
Request for Comments
Purpose
Appendix A-Instructions for Obtaining Copies of Regulatory Documents
Appendix B-General Rulemaking Contact Persons
Appendix C-Public Rulemaking Dockets
Appendix D-Review Plans for Section 610 and Other Requirements Agenda

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the 
Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). There should be 
no more regulations than necessary, and those that are issued 
should be simpler, more comprehensible, and less burdensome. 
Regulations should not be issued without appropriate involvement of 
the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and 
revised, as needed, to assure that they continue to meet the needs 
for which they originally were designed. To view additional 
information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
activities online, go to https://regs.dot.gov.

    To help the Department achieve these goals and in accordance 
with Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735; October 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), the Department 
prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current 
and projected rulemaking, reviews of existing regulations, and 
completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which 
action has begun or is projected during the succeeding 12 months or 
such longer period as may be anticipated or for which action has 
been completed since the last agenda.

    The agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices 
initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by the Department 
Regulations Council. The Department's last agenda was published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 2009 (74 FR 21970). The next one is 
scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in May 2010.

    The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified 
Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at 
www.reginfo.gov, in a format that offers users a greatly enhanced 
ability to obtain information from the Agenda database.

    Because publication in the Federal Register is mandated for the 
regulatory flexibility agendas required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602), DOT's printed agenda entries 
include only:

1. The Agency's agenda preamble;

2. Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in 
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; and

3. Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain 
information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda 
requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 
610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and 
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for 
detailed list see section heading ``Explanation of Information on 
the Agenda'') on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda 
published on the Internet.

Significant/Priority Rulemakings

    The agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. 
We have classified rules as a DOT agency priority in the agenda if 
they are, essentially, very costly, controversial, or of 
substantial public interest under our Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. All DOT agency priority rulemaking documents are 
subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation. If the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) decides a rule is subject to its 
review under Executive Order 12866, we have classified it as 
significant in the agenda.

Explanation of Information on the Agenda

    The format for this agenda is required by a fall 2009 
memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget.

    First, the agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then, the 
agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) 
proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, 
and (5)

[[Page 64471]]

completed actions. For each entry, the agenda provides the 
following information: (1) Its ``significance''; (2) a short 
descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory 
citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline 
and, if so, for what action (e.g., NPRM, final rule); (6) an 
abstract; (7) a timetable, including the earliest expected date for 
a decision on whether to take the action; (8) whether the 
rulemaking will affect small entities and/or levels of government 
and, if so, which categories; (9) whether a Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) analysis is required (for rules that would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities); (10) a listing of any analyses an office will prepare or 
has prepared for the action (With minor exceptions, DOT requires an 
economic analysis for all its rulemakings.); (11) an agency contact 
office or official who can provide further information; (12) a 
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) assigned to identify an 
individual rulemaking in the agenda and facilitate tracing further 
action on the issue; (13) whether the action is subject to the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; (14) whether the action is subject to 
the Energy Act; and (15) whether the action is major under the 
congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. If there is information that does not fit 
in the other categories, it will be included under a separate 
heading entitled ``Additional Information.''

    For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently 
as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as 
the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep 
those requirements operationally current, we only include the 
general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact 
office or official, and an indication of the expected number of 
regulations; we do not list individual regulations.

    In the ``Timetable'' column, we use abbreviations to indicate 
the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a 
decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which we 
expect to make a decision on whether to issue it. In addition, 
these dates are based on current schedules. Information received 
subsequent to the issuance of this agenda could result in a 
decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed 
publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation 
could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater 
need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication 
date.

    Finally, a dot () preceding an entry indicates that the 
entry appears in the agenda for the first time.

Request for Comments
General

    Our agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. 
Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements 
that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, 
as well as make the agenda easier to use. We would like you, the 
public, to make suggestions or comments on how the agenda could be 
further improved.

Reviews

    We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing 
regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether 
they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your 
attention to the Department's review plan in Appendix D.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department is especially interested in obtaining 
information on requirements that have a ``significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities'' and, therefore, 
must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have 
any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with 
your explanation of why they should be reviewed.

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are 
specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for 
review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (Section 610 
Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please 
see Appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' are defined in the Executive order to include 
regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, we encourage State and local 
governments to provide us with information about how the 
Department's rulemakings impact them.

Purpose

    The Department is publishing this regulatory agenda in the 
Federal Register to share with interested members of the public the 
Department's preliminary expectations regarding its future 
regulatory actions. This should enable the public to be more aware 
of the Department's regulatory activity and should result in more 
effective public participation. This publication in the Federal 
Register does not impose any binding obligation on the Department 
or any of the offices within the Department with regard to any 
specific item on the agenda. Regulatory action, in addition to the 
items listed, is not precluded.

Dated: October 19, 2009.

 Ray LaHood,

Secretary of Transportation.
Appendix A--Instructions for Obtaining Copies of Regulatory Documents

    To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the 
agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person 
listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most 
if not all such documents, including the semiannual agenda, are 
available through the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. See 
Appendix C for more information.

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

    Jennifer Outhouse, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

    LaKisha Pearson, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

[[Page 64472]]

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

    Michelle Silva, Docket Clerk, Federal Railroad Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W31-109, Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 493-6030.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

    (Name of contact person), National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

    (Name of contact person), Federal Transit Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)

    (Name of contact person), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

    (Name of contact person), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration (PHMSA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

    Kimberly Lewis, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-5158.

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

    (Name of contact person), The Research and Innovative 
Technology Administration (RITA),1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    To obtain a copy of a specific Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) regulatory document in the agenda, you should communicate 
directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the 
address or telephone number listed; access the FAA's Regulations 
and Policies web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/; 
call (202) 267-9680; or write to us at Federal Aviation 
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

Office of the Secretary (OST)

    To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document or to 
receive future copies of the Department's regulatory agenda write 
to: Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, C-50, 
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4723.

Appendix B--General Rulemaking Contact Persons

    The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within 
the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking 
process within the various operating administrations.

    FAA - Rebecca MacPherson, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations 
and Enforcement Division, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 915A, 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.

    FHWA - Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.

    FMCSA - Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.

    NHTSA - Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.

    FRA - Kathryn Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Room W31-214, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 
493-6063.

    FTA - Linda Lasley, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Room E56-202, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 
366-4063.

    SLSDC - Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0091.

    PHMSA - Patricia Burke, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4400.

    MARAD - Christine Gurland, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 366-5157.

    RITA - Robert Monniere, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-5498.

    OST - Neil Eisner, Office of Regulation and Enforcement, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-
4723.

Appendix C--Public Rulemaking Dockets

    All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal 
Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address: https://
www.regulations.gov. The FDMS allows the public to search, view, 
download, and comment on all Federal agency rulemaking documents in 
one central online system. The above referenced Internet address 
also allows the public to sign up to receive notification when 
certain documents are placed in the dockets.

    The public also may review regulatory dockets at, or deliver 
comments on proposed rulemakings to, the Dockets Office at 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-
5527. Working Hours: 9-5.

Appendix D--Review Plans for Section 610 and Other Requirements
Part I - The Plan
General

    The Department of Transportation has long recognized the 
importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to 
determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our 1979 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also 
have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the use of plain 
language techniques in new rules and considering its use in 
existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources permit 
its use. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing 
rules and, if needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on 
these reviews.

Section 610 Review Plan

    Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that (1) 
have been published within the last 10 years and (2) have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities'' (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the 
Federal Register each year a list of any such rules that we will 
review during the next year. The Office of the Secretary and each 
of the Department's Operating Administrations have a 10-year review 
plan. These reviews comply with

[[Page 64473]]

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Other Review Plan(s)

    All elements of the Department, except for the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), have also elected to use this 10-year plan 
process to comply with the review requirements of the Department's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures and Executive Order 12866.

Changes to the Review Plan

    Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For 
example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews 
will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, 
may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. 
Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for 
example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this 
plan or in response to a Presidentially mandated review. If there 
is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the 
following agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the 
required notice prior to the review.

Part II - The Review Process
The Analysis

    Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 
different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For 
purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-
fall schedule for publication of the agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) 
begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 
(2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010; and 
so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For 
example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review 
for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning 
the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the 
regulatory contacts listed in Appendix B, General Rulemaking 
Contact Persons.

Section 610 Review

    The Agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's 
group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, 
requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on 
the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of 
agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this agenda 
provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment 
consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the 
analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to 
help us in making our determinations.

    In each fall agenda, the Agency will publish the results of the 
analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that 
had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short 
explanation (e.g., ``these rules only establish petition processes 
that have no cost impact'' or ``these rules do not apply to any 
small entities''). For parts, subparts, or other discrete sections 
of rules that do have a SEIOSNOSE, we will announce that we will be 
conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 
months. At this stage, we will add an entry to the Agenda in the 
prerulemaking section describing the review in more detail. We also 
will seek public comment on how best to lessen the impact of these 
rules and provide a name or docket to which public comments can be 
submitted. In some cases, the section 610 review may be part of 
another unrelated review of the rule. In such a case, we plan to 
clearly indicate which parts of the review are being conducted 
under section 610.

Other Reviews

    The Agency will also examine the specified rules to determine 
whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule 
or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall agenda, 
the Agency will also publish information on the results of the 
examinations completed during the previous year.

    The FAA, in addition to reviewing its rules in accordance with 
the Section 610 Review Plan, has established a tri-annual process 
to comply with the review requirements of the Department's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, Executive Order 12866, and 
Plain Language Review Plan. The FAA's latest review notice was 
published November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64170). In that notice, the FAA 
requested comments from the public to identify those regulations 
currently in effect that it should amend, remove, or simplify. The 
FAA also requested the public provide any specific suggestions 
where rules could be developed as performance-based rather than 
prescriptive, and any specific plain-language that might be used, 
and provide suggested language on how those rules should be 
written. The FAA will review the issues addressed by the commenters 
against its regulatory agenda and rulemaking program efforts and 
adjust its regulatory priorities consistent with its statutory 
responsibilities. At the end of this process, the FAA will publish 
a summary and general disposition of comments and indicate, where 
appropriate, how it will adjust its regulatory priorities.

Part III - List of Pending Section 610 Reviews

    The Agenda identifies the pending DOT Section 610 Reviews by 
inserting (Section 610 Review) after the title for the specific 
entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the 
agenda entries at www.reginfo.gov. For example, to obtain a list of 
all entries that are Section 610 Reviews under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, a user would select the desired responses on the 
search screen (by selecting advanced search) and, in effect, 
generate the desired ``index'' of reviews.

                                             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                                          SECTION 610 AND OTHER REVIEWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Analysis
   Year                            Regulations To Be Reviewed                             Year       Review Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1           49 CFR parts 91 through 99 and 14 CFR parts 200 through 212.............          2008          2009
2           48 CFR parts 1201 through 1253, and new parts and subparts..............          2009          2010
3           14 CFR parts 213 through 232............................................          2010          2011
4           14 CFR parts 234 through 254............................................          2011          2012
5           14 CFR parts 255 through 298 and 49 CFR part 40.........................          2012          2013

[[Page 64474]]

 
6           14 CFR parts 300 through 373............................................          2013          2014
7           14 CFR parts 374 through 398............................................          2014          2015
8           14 CFR part 399 and 49 CFR parts 1 through 11...........................          2015          2016
9           49 CFR parts 17 through 28..............................................          2016          2017
10          49 CFR parts 29 through 39 and parts 41 through 89......................          2017          2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year 1 (fall 2008) List of rules with ongoing analysis
49 CFR part 91 - International Air Transportation Fair Competitive 
Practices
49 CFR part 92 - Recovering Debts to the United States by Salary Offset
49 CFR part 93 - Aircraft Allocation
49 CFR part 95 - Advisory Committees
49 CFR part 98 - Enforcement of Restrictions on Post-Employment 
Activities
49 CFR part 99 - Employee Responsibilities and Conduct
14 CFR part 200 - Definitions and Instructions
14 CFR part 201 - Air carrier authority under subtitle VII of title 49 
of The United States Code [Amended]
14 CFR part 203 - Waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and 
defenses
14 CFR part 204 - Data to support fitness determinations
14 CFR part 205 - Aircraft accident liability insurance
14 CFR part 206 - Certificates of public convenience and necessity: 
Special authorizations and exemptions
14 CFR part 207 - Charter trips by U.S. scheduled air carriers
14 CFR part 208 - Charter trips by U.S. charter air carriers
14 CFR part 211 - Applications for permits to foreign air carriers
14 CFR part 212 - Charter rules for U.S. and foreign direct air 
carriers
Year 2 (fall 2009) List of rules that will be analyzed during the next 
year
48 CFR part 1201 - Federal acquisition regulations system
48 CFR part 1202 - Definitions of words and terms
48 CFR part 1203 - Improper business practices and personal conflicts 
of interest
48 CFR part 1204 - Administrative matters
48 CFR part 1205 - Publicizing contract actions
48 CFR part 1206 - Competition requirements
48 CFR part 1207 - Acquisition planning
48 CFR part 1211 - Describing agency needs
48 CFR part 1213 - Simplified acquisition procedures
48 CFR part 1214 - Sealed bidding
48 CFR part 1215 - Contracting by negotiation
48 CFR part 1216 - Types of contracts
48 CFR part 1217 - Special contracting methods
48 CFR part 1219 - Small business programs
48 CFR part 1222 - Application of labor laws to government acquisitions
48 CFR part 1223 - Environment, energy and water efficiency, renewable 
energy technologies, occupational safety, and drug-free workplace
48 CFR part 1224 - Protection of privacy and freedom of information
48 CFR part 1227 - Patents, data, and copyrights
48 CFR part 1228 - Bonds and insurance
48 CFR part 1231 - Contract cost principles and procedures
48 CFR part 1232 - Contract financing
48 CFR part 1233 - Protests, disputes, and appeals
48 CFR part 1234 - [Reserved]
48 CFR part 1235 - Research and development contracting
48 CFR part 1236 - Construction and architect-engineer contracts
48 CFR part 1237 - Service contracting
48 CFR part 1239 - Acquisition of information technology
48 CFR part 1242 - Contract administration and audit services
48 CFR part 1245 - Government property
48 CFR part 1246 - Quality assurance
48 CFR part 1247 - Transportation
48 CFR part 1252 - Solicitation provisions and contract clauses
48 CFR part 1253 - Forms

[[Page 64475]]



                                         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
                                             SECTION 610 REVIEW PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Analysis
   Year                            Regulations To Be Reviewed                             Year       Review Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1           14 CFR parts 119 through 129 and parts 150 through 156..................          2008          2009
2           14 CFR parts 133 through 139 and parts 157 through 169..................          2009          2010
3           14 CFR parts 141 through 147 and parts 170 through 187..................          2010          2011
4           14 CFR parts 189 through 198 and parts 1 through 16.....................          2011          2012
5           14 CFR parts 17 through 33..............................................          2012          2013
6           14 CFR parts 34 through 39 and parts 400 through 405....................          2013          2014
7           14 CFR parts 43 through 49 and parts 406 through 415....................          2014          2015
8           14 CFR parts 60 through 77..............................................          2015          2016
9           14 CFR parts 91 through 105.............................................          2016          2017
10          14 CFR parts 417 through 460............................................          2017          2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has elected to use the two-step, 2-year process used by most DOT modes in past plans. As such, the FAA
  has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the ``analysis
  year''), all rules published during the previous 10 years within a 10 percent block of the regulations will be
  analyzed to identify those with a SEIOSNOSE. During the second year (the ``review year''), each rule
  identified in the analysis year as having a SEIOSNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with section 610 (b) to
  determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize impact on small entities. Results of
  those reviews will be published in the DOT semiannual regulatory agenda.

Tri-Annual Review Plan
The FAA, in addition to reviewing its rules in accordance with the 
Section 610 Review Plan, has established a tri-annual process to comply 
with the review requirements of the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures, Executive Order 12866, and Plain Language Review Plan. 
Our latest review notice was published November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64170). 
In that notice, we requested comments from the public to identify those 
regulations currently in effect that we should amend, remove, or 
simplify. We also requested the public provide any specific suggestions 
where rules could be developed as performance-based rather than 
prescriptive, and any specific plain-language that might be used, and 
provide suggested language on how those rules should be written. The 
FAA will review the issues addressed by the commenters against its 
regulatory agenda and rulemaking program efforts and adjust its 
regulatory priorities consistent with its statutory responsibilities. 
At the end of this process, the FAA will publish a summary and general 
disposition of comments and indicate, where appropriate, how we will 
adjust our regulatory priorities.
Year 1 (2008) List of rules analyzed and summary of results
14 CFR part 119 - Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators
 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.
14 CFR part 121 - Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, And 
Supplemental Operations
 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found six amendments that could have a SEIOSNOSE.
Amendment No. 121-216
 Amendment No. 121-216 removed the requirement that windshear flight 
guidance equipment be installed on older airplanes; amended the 
provision allowing for an extended compliance period based on an 
approved airplane retrofit schedule; and provided for acceptance of 
alternative airplane equipment in the form of an approved airborne 
windshear detection and avoidance system (predictive systems). The 
final rule allowed certificate holders to install windshear equipment 
in coordination with the installation of traffic alert and collision 
avoidance system (TCAS II) equipment, thereby, reducing the prospect 
that carriers would have to divert critical maintenance resources from 
other safety programs.

    Original FAA finding: This amendment primarily was in response 
to an Air Transport Association (ATA) petition to the FAA, dated 
June 1, 1989, to amend the windshear rule to exclude certain older 
airplanes from the flight guidance systems requirements and to 
extend the compliance date. The FAA determined that ATA's petition 
had merit and issued amendment No. 121-216. In doing so, the FAA 
found that there would be a significant beneficial economic impact 
on a substantial number of small nonscheduled part 121 certificate 
holders due to the cost relief from not having to install the 
equipment on certain older aircraft.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: The 
benefits to small entities of amendment No. 121-216 have probably 
diminished over time. However, the original FAA finding of a 
positive SEIOSNOSE should still stand.

    Amendment No. 121-269

    Amendment No. 121-269 upgraded the fire safety standards for 
cargo or baggage compartments in certain transport category 
airplanes by eliminating Class D compartments as an option for 
future type certification.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA found that this amendment would 
have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA conducted an exhaustive analysis of 
potential alternatives to seek possible ways of mitigating the 
burden on small entities and still provide an equivalent level of 
safety. In its analysis, the Agency considered several alternatives 
that ranged from relatively low-cost, purely preventive approaches 
(e.g., banning certain types of material from air transport), to 
mitigating approaches such as: (1) Retrofit of detection systems

[[Page 64476]]

only; (2) a requirement for detection systems on newly manufactured 
aircraft only; (3) a requirement for detection and/or suppression 
systems for extended over water operations only; (4) retrofit of 
detection and suppression systems; (5) a requirement for detection 
and suppression systems on newly manufactured aircraft only; and 
(6) logical combinations of these alternatives.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: 
During the comment period, the FAA did not receive any comments 
that indicated that the amendment would place small part 121 
operators at a competitive disadvantage relative to large part 121 
operators or that there were alternatives that could provide the 
same level of safety benefit at reduced costs to small operators. 
Moreover, no analysis was submitted that indicated that fire safety 
risks for small part 121 carriers differed from those large part 
121 carriers. Therefore, even though this amendment did have a 
SEIOSNOSE, it was necessary in order to achieve the level of safety 
sought by this rule action.

    Amendment No. 121-282

    Amendment No. 121-282 required design approval holders of 
certain turbine-powered transport category airplanes, and of any 
subsequent modifications to these airplanes, to substantiate that 
the design of the fuel tank system precluded the existence of 
ignition sources within the airplane fuel tanks. It also required 
developing and implementing maintenance and inspection instructions 
to assure the safety of the fuel tank system. For new type designs, 
this amendment also required demonstrating that ignition sources 
could not be present in fuel tanks when failure conditions were 
considered, identifying any safety-critical maintenance actions, 
and incorporating a means either to minimize development of 
flammable vapors in fuel tanks or to prevent catastrophic damage if 
ignition did occur.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
would have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 143 air carriers that 
would be impacted by this amendment. Of the 143 impacted air 
carriers, 107 were small airlines.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: In 
order to mitigate the costs to the extent possible without reducing 
the effectiveness of the amendment, the FAA extended operator 
compliance time from 18 months to 36 months. In addition, the 
Agency determined that fewer fuel tank re-inspections would be 
needed than originally estimated in the NPRM. The net result of 
these modifications was to reduce the overall cost impact from 
$172.2 million to $126.6 million (in 2000 $$), a 26.4 percent 
reduction. The FAA was not able to identify any other alternatives 
that could reduce the cost impact to small entities and still 
achieve the desired safety results. A review of the petition for 
exemption history revealed that no relief was sought from this 
amendment since its issuance.

    Amendment No. 121-284

    Amendment No. 121-284 (67 FR 72726) required airplanes operated 
under part 121 to undergo inspections and records reviews by the 
Administrator or a designated representative after their 14th year 
in service and at specified intervals thereafter. This amendment 
also prohibited operation of those airplanes after specified 
deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures 
were included in their maintenance or inspection programs. This 
amendment represented a critical step toward compliance with the 
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA conducted a full regulatory 
flexibility analysis to assess the impact of this amendment on 
small entities. The FAA determined that 58 small part 121 carriers 
would be impacted by this amendment. Two of these were estimated to 
incur annualized costs greater than 1 percent of annual revenues. A 
step the FAA took to significantly lower compliance costs on the 
carriers, including small entities, was to lengthen the time period 
between required inspections from 5 years to 7 years. This longer 
period was expected to lower compliance costs to operators by 
enabling them to schedule the required inspections during heavy 
maintenance checks. To further assist carriers in complying with 
the requirements, the FAA also issued an advisory circular to 
provide guidance for complying with a damage-tolerance supplemental 
structural inspections program (DT-SSIP).

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: A 
review of the petition for exemption records indicated that no one 
sought relief from these requirements since they were implemented. 
The FAA took actions to minimize the costs on small entities to the 
extent that it thought was possible and still meet the objectives 
of the Aging Aircraft Safety Act. Based on the comments it received 
in response to this interim final rule, the FAA took further steps 
in amendment No. 121-284 (70 FR 5517).

    Amendment No. 121-297

    Amendment No. 121-297 introduced airplane weight and 
performance characteristics as the basis for collision avoidance 
system requirements to capture cargo airplanes weighing more than 
33,000 pounds (lbs.) maximum certificated takeoff weight (MCTOW). 
This action was mandated by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
and Reform Act (AIR-21), enacted April 5, 2000, to take measures to 
reduce the risk and collateral damage of a mid-air collision 
involving a cargo airplane.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA found that this amendment would 
have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 24 all cargo turbine-powered 
fleet operators who would be impacted by this amendment. Eleven, or 
roughly 46 percent, of these operators were determined to be 
significantly impacted. The FAA identified seven all cargo piston-
powered operators who would be impacted by this amendment. Six, or 
86 percent, of these operators were determined to be significantly 
impacted. The Agency believed that a compliance cost of 2 percent 
or less of a firm's revenue was affordable. The costs to these 
firms exceeded this level. Due to the congressional mandate, the 
FAA was limited in what actions it could take to mitigate the 
impact on small entities. The Agency was able, however, to reduce 
the TCAS requirement from TCAS II to TCAS I for piston-powered 
airplanes to mitigate some of the costs to operators of those 
airplanes. It also eliminated the requirement for TCAS I in 
turbine-powered airplanes of less than 33,000 pounds maximum 
certificated takeoff weight. Finally, the FAA set the rule's 
compliance date at the latest date allowed by the congressional 
mandate. Taken together, these measures were viewed as the upper 
level of the extent to which the FAA could mitigate cost impacts on 
small entities and still achieve the goals of the legislation.

[[Page 64477]]

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: 
Between April 2003 and January 2005, the FAA received five 
petitions from small entities for exemption from the TCAS 
requirements of this amendment. Two of these exemptions were denied 
because they sought relief strictly on the basis of economic impact 
and did not differ in any material way from other similar requests 
that had been denied in the past for airplanes involved in non-
cargo operations. Three exemptions were granted because they were 
found to be necessary to ensure that needed services in Alaska 
would not be disrupted and doing so would not adversely impact 
safety. The original FAA finding of a SEIOSNOSE held true but 
should be fully diminished as the compliance date is 4 years past.

    Amendment No. 121-340

    Amendment No. 121-340 established a performance-based set of 
requirements that set acceptable flammability exposure values in 
tanks most prone to explosion or required the installation of an 
ignition mitigation means in an affected fuel tank.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
would have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 14 small air carriers 
that would be affected. Of these 14, 3 were found to be affected 
significantly. This determination was based on whether or not the 
cost to the carrier was equal to or exceeded 2 per cent of its 
revenue. Three carriers met this criterion. The FAA considered 
several alternative approaches to this amendment to ease the burden 
on small carriers. The Agency concluded that this amendment 
provided the best balance of cost and benefits for the United 
States society. The FAA argued, further, that the risk is largely 
the same, regardless of whether the plane was flown by a large or 
small entity.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: This 
amendment still has a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA will need to make a 
determination regarding the continued need for this regulation.

14 CFR part 125 - Certification and Operations: Airplanes Having a 
Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload Capacity 
of 6,000 Pounds or More; and Rules Governing Persons on Board Such 
Aircraft

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found part 125 itself and five amendments that could have a 
SEIOSNOSE.

    Part 125

    Part 125 provides a single set of certification and operation 
rules for U.S.-registered airplanes, which have a seating capacity 
of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 
pounds or more when used in any non-common (private) carriage 
operation.

    Original FAA finding: The economic impacts of part 125 were 
estimated and documented by a study conducted by the Aerospace 
Corporation during December 1978 and January 1979 and reflected 
data available at that time. While their study did not specifically 
address the economic impact on small entities, their estimate of 
$88.28 million in first year total costs (in 1979 dollars, $222.2 
million in current dollars), and $20.45 million in recurring annual 
costs (in 1979 dollars, $51.12 million in current dollars), it can 
reasonably be concluded that this rule did have a SEIOSNOSE.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: A 
review of petitions for exemption from part 125 revealed that 
relief was generally sought from safety requirements such as 
collision avoidance systems. The FAA denied these requests because 
petitioners were never able to provide convincing arguments for why 
it would be in the public interest to grant them the requested 
relief. There was no evidence in the record to suggest that part 
125 continues to have a SEIOSNOSE.

    Amendment No. 125-10

    Amendment No. 125-10 required digital flight data recorders and 
cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) to be installed in a broad category 
of airplanes and rotorcraft operated by air carriers and commuters, 
as well as, in selected aircraft operated in general aviation.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
could have aSEIOSNOSE. In order to mitigate the cost to some 
extent, the FAA modified its proposal to extend the compliance 
period from 2 years to 3 years. Given that this rule action was in 
response to a congressional mandate, the Agency was constrained to 
take sufficient action to ensure the NTSB had available data in 
needed for accident investigation purposes if acquiring that data 
was technologically feasible.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: Since 
this rulemaking was promulgated over 20 years ago, the cost impact 
has diminished substantially and has approached if not reached a 
negligible level. This analysis concludes that there is no longer a 
SEIOSNOSE as a result of this amendment.

    Amendment No. 125-11

    This amendment required the installation and use of a Traffic 
Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in large transport-type 
airplanes and certain turbine-powered smaller airplanes. The 
Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 
directed the FAA to require the installation and operation of TCAS 
in commercial aircraft flying in the United States.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA found that this amendment would 
have a SEIOSNOSE.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: The 
FAA estimated the average total cost impact of this amendment on 
part 125 operators at $96,000 in 1989 dollars ($151,000 in current 
dollars) annualized over the period of 1989 to 2003. The FAA 
concluded, however, that there were no viable alternatives for 
small air carriers to adopt that would reduce the cost of 
compliance and still achieve the levels of protection sought by 
this amendment. This amendment implemented a congressional mandate, 
thereby limiting the discretion the Agency had and still has in 
mitigating the burden on small entities. Moreover, a review of the 
petition for exemption records indicates that the Agency has been 
consistent in denying requests for relief from this requirement on 
safety grounds. This analysis finds, therefore, that a SEIOSNOSE 
may still exist and the FAA will need to make a determination 
regarding the continued need for this regulation.

    Amendment No. 125-36

    Amendment No. 125-36 was part of a larger action that required 
design approval holders of certain turbine-powered transport 
category airplanes, and any subsequent modifications to these 
airplanes, to substantiate that the design of the fuel tank system 
precluded the existence of ignition sources within the airplane 
fuel tanks. It also required

[[Page 64478]]

developing and implementing maintenance and inspection instructions 
to assure the safety of the fuel tank system. For new type designs, 
this amendment also required demonstrating that ignition sources 
could not be present in fuel tanks when failure conditions were 
considered, identifying any safety-critical maintenance actions, 
and incorporating a means either to minimize development of 
flammable vapors in fuel tanks or to prevent catastrophic damage if 
ignition did occur.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
would have aSEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 143 carriers that would 
be impacted by this amendment. Of the 143 impacted air carriers, 
107 were small airlines.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: In 
order to mitigate the costs to the extent possible without reducing 
the effectiveness of the amendment, the FAA extended operator 
compliance time from 18 months to 36 months. In addition, the 
Agency determined that fewer fuel tank re-inspections would be 
needed than originally estimated in the NPRM. The net result of 
these modifications was to reduce the overall cost impact from 
$172.2 million to $126.6 million (in 2000 $), a 26.4 percent 
reduction. The FAA was not able to identify any other alternatives 
that could reduce the cost impact to small entities and still 
achieve the desired safety results. A review of the petition for 
exemption history revealed that no relief was sought from this 
amendment since its issuance.

    Amendment No. 125-41

    Amendment No. 125-41 was part of a larger rulemaking action 
that introduced airplane weight and performance characteristics as 
the basis for collision avoidance system requirements to capture 
cargo airplanes weighing more than 33,000 pounds maximum 
certificated takeoff weight (MCTOW). This action was mandated by 
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR-21) 
enacted April 5, 2000, to take measures to reduce the risk and 
collateral damage of a mid-air collision involving a cargo 
airplane.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA found that this amendment would 
have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 24 all-cargo turbine-powered 
fleet operators who would be impacted by this amendment. Eleven, or 
roughly 46 percent, of these operators were determined to be 
significantly impacted. The FAA identified seven all-cargo, piston-
powered operators who would be impacted by this amendment. Six, or 
86 percent, of these operators were determined to be significantly 
impacted. The Agency believed that a compliance cost of 2 percent 
or less of a firm's revenue was affordable. The costs to these 
firms exceeded that level. Due to the congressional mandate, the 
FAA was limited in what actions it could take to mitigate some of 
the costs to operators of those airplanes. It also eliminated the 
requirement for TCAS I in turbine-powered airplanes of less than 
33,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff-weight. Finally, the FAA 
set the rule's compliance date at the latest date allowed by the 
congressional mandate. Taken together, these measures were viewed 
as the upper level of the extent to which the FAA could mitigate 
cost impacts on small entities and still achieve the goals of the 
legislation.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: 
Between April 2003 and January 2005, the FAA received five 
petitions from small entities for exemption from the TCAS 
requirements of this amendment. Two of these exemptions were denied 
because they sought relief strictly on the basis of economic impact 
and did not differ in any material way from other similar requests 
that had been denied in the past for airplanes involved in non-
cargo operations. Three exemptions were granted because they were 
found to be necessary to ensure that needed services in Alaska 
would not be disrupted and doing so would not adversely impact 
safety. The original FAA finding of a SEIOSNOSE holds true but 
should be fully diminished as the compliance date is 4 years past.

    Amendment No. 125-55

    Amendment No. 125-55 established a performance-based set of 
requirements that set acceptable flammability exposure values in 
tanks most prone to explosion or required the installation of an 
ignition mitigation means in an affected fuel tank.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
would have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA identified 14 small air carriers 
that would be affected. Of these 14, three were found to be 
affected significantly. This determination was based on whether or 
not the cost to the carrier was equal to or exceeded 2 percent of 
its revenue. Three carriers met this criterion. The FAA considered 
several alternative approaches to this amendment to ease the burden 
on small carriers. The Agency concluded that this amendment 
provided the best balance of cost and benefits for the United 
States society. The FAA argued, further, that the risk is largely 
the same, regardless of whether the plane was flown by a large or 
small entity.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: This 
amendment still has a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA will need to make a 
determination regarding the continued need for this regulation.

14 CFR part 129 - Operations: foreign air carriers and foreign 
operators of U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE because this part does 
not impact domestic entities

14 CFR part 150 - Airport noise compatibility planning

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 151 - Federal aid to airports

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found there have not been any amendments to part 151 since the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act was enacted.

14 CFR part 152 - Airport aid program

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 153 - Airport operations

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 155 - Release of airport property from surplus property 
disposal restrictions

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 156 - State block grant pilot program

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

    Year 2 (2009) List of rules analyzed and summary of results

[[Page 64479]]

14 CFR part 133 - Rotorcraft external-load operations

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 135 - Operating requirements: Commuter and on demand 
operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found three amendments that could have a SEIOSNOSE.

    Amendment No. 135-42

    Amendment No. 135-42 revised the operating rules for air taxi 
and commercial operators by requiring that all turbine-powered 
(rather than just turbojet) airplanes with 10 or more seats be 
equipped with an approved ground proximity warning system.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA certified that this amendment may 
have a SEIOSNOSE because the annual cost that would be imposed on 
small part 135 operators to install a ground proximity warning 
system on turbine-powered airplanes would exceed the significant 
impact criteria in place when the rule was promulgated. The FAA 
concluded after analysis, however, that there were no viable 
alternatives to the provisions of the amendment and issued the rule 
in final.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: 
Between the period January 2003 and December 2008, the period 
beyond the analysis period of this final rule, there were no cases 
of affected parties seeking relief from the provisions of the 
amendment. The original finding of a possible SEIOSNOSE should be 
fully diminished as the compliance date was 16 years ago.

    Amendment No. 135-66 (61 FR 69302)

    Amendment No. 135-66 (61 FR 69302) was one part of an overall 
strategy to further reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the park 
environment and to assist the National Park Service in achieving 
its statutory mandate to provide the substantial restoration of 
natural quiet and experience in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP).

    Original FAA finding: The FAA found that this amendment would 
have a SEIOSNOSE. This amendment affected commercial sightseeing 
operators conducting flight over the GCNP under part 135. This 
amendment was unique in that most of the economic impact fell upon 
small businesses.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: 
Consistent with the spirit and intent of the RFA, the FAA chose a 
regulatory alternative that tailored most requirements to the size 
of the firm. In doing so, the Agency believed that the regulatory 
requirements in this amendment provided the least burdensome way 
for small entities to accomplish the goals of the final rule-
restore natural quiet and preserve the opportunity for the public 
to enjoy air tours at the GCNP. In addition, the FAA proposed to 
take further action that would phase out noisier aircraft from air 
tour service prior to the 2008 deadline imposed by the statute.

    Amendment No. 135-107

    Amendment No. 135-107 set safety and oversight rules for a 
broad variety of sightseeing and commercial air tour flights. The 
intended effect of this amendment was to standardize requirements 
for air tour operators and consolidate air tour safety standards 
within part 135.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that there would be a 
SEIOSNOSE. The FAA estimated that part 135 commercial air tour 
operators would incur 82 percent of the costs of the rule. The FAA 
noted that helicopter operators would incur much higher costs than 
airplane operators due to the requirement to equip their aircraft 
with floats if they conducted operations over water and to the 
requirement to prepare helicopter performance plans. The FAA 
believed, however, that the only way to accomplish the commercial 
air tour safety needs for helicopter operations was to impose the 
higher standards on those entities.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: A 
review of the petition for exemption and petition for rulemaking 
records since this amendment was issued found that no entities 
sought relief from the float equipage requirement. The cost impacts 
from the original estimates remain valid. However, absent requests 
for relief from the regulated community, the notion espoused by the 
FAA that a number of options were available to operators to avoid 
or minimize the costs, may have merit. The FAA noted, for example, 
that some operators may alter their air tour routes to avoid the 
compliance costs. The Agency added that others may elect to only 
equip part of their fleet to ensure the affordability to their 
business. This analysis concludes that there continues to be a 
SEIOSNOSE, but there is no evidence to suggest that small 
businesses are suffering a hardship.

14 CFR part 136 - Commercial air tours and national parks air tour 
management

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 137 - Agricultural aircraft operations

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 139 - Certification of airports

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found one amendment with a SEIOSNOSE.

    Amendment No. 139-94

    Amendment No. 139-94 established certification requirements for 
airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft 
designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger 
seats.

    Original FAA finding: The FAA determined that this amendment 
would have a SEIOSNOSE. The FAA stated that under SBA's definition 
of a ``small'' public entity, there were more than 200 small entity 
airports that would be affected by this rule action. For each small 
entity, the FAA estimated the average initial hours required to set 
up a recordkeeping system, as mandated by this amendment, would be 
70 hours and expected a continuing paperwork requirement of about 
90 hours annually. Having sought possible alternatives to mitigate 
the costs on small entities, the FAA, in consultation with 
industry, concluded that there existed a need to require at least 
some minimum level of both risk reduction and accident mitigation 
measures at airports during operations of smaller air carrier 
airplanes. The FAA believed that the chosen alternative was the 
only one that was relatively affordable and would achieve the 
safety objectives of the rule. The Agency recognized the need, 
however, to provide some flexibility in the implementation of 
certain safety measures at airports with infrequent air

[[Page 64480]]

carrier service or where local resources were severely limited. The 
FAA added that other measures at its disposal to mitigate impacts 
on small airport operators included its authority to permit 
alternative means of compliance to accommodate local conditions and 
the use of its statutory authority to grant exemptions from part 
139 requirements, as appropriate. Other methods the FAA identified 
as ways small entity airports could mitigate the economic impact of 
this amendment included Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding, 
which was available for certain capital expenditures that could be 
required by this amendment. Examples of these requirements were 
firefighting equipment, airport marking, and signs. Another 
potential source of revenue to assist small airports in meeting the 
regulatory requirements of this amendment was the Essential Air 
Service (EAS) Program. The FAA believed that, ultimately, most of 
the costs of these amendments would be borne by the Federal 
Government through increased subsidies.

    Finding of this 5 U.S.C. section 610 analysis and review: The 
original funding still holds true. The flexibility that the FAA 
afforded airport operators in meeting the requirements of this 
amendment, combined with numerous avenues for funding support that 
were and still are available to airport operators, substantially 
mitigate the impact of this amendment on small entities.

14 CFR part 157 - Notice of construction, alteration, activation, and 
deactivation of airports

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 158 - Passenger facility charges (PFCs)

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 161 - Notice and approval of airport noise and access 
restrictions

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

14 CFR part 169 - Expenditure of Federal funds for nonmilitary airports 
or air navigation facilities thereon

 Section 610: The Agency conducted a Section 610 Review of this 
part and found no amendments with a SEIOSNOSE.

                                         FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
                                          SECTION 610 AND OTHER REVIEWS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------