, 21839-21865 [2010-8987]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 21839-21865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8987]


[[Page 21839]]

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

Part XII





Department of Transportation





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



###Semiannual Regulatory Agenda###

[[Page 21840]]

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 December 7, 2009 (74 FR 64470). The next 
one is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in October 
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) decide 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 2010 
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

[[Page 21841]]

rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) 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: March 22, 2010.

 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.

    (Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation 
Administration, substitute the following address: Office of 
Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591).

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

[[Page 21842]]

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 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

[[Page 21843]]

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
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

[[Page 21844]]

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

                                         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

[[Page 21845]]

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 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 dollars), 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.

[[Page 21846]]

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 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.
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 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 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.

[[Page 21847]]

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 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 dollars), 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

[[Page 21848]]

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
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

[[Page 21849]]

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 of 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 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

[[Page 21850]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Analysis
   Year                            Regulations To Be Reviewed                             Year       Review Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1           None....................................................................          2008          2009
2           23 CFR parts 1 through 260..............................................          2009          2010
3           23 CFR parts 420 through 470............................................          2010          2011
4           23 CFR part 500.........................................................          2011          2012
5           23 CFR parts 620 through 637............................................          2012          2013
6           23 CFR parts 645 through 669............................................          2013          2014
7           23 CFR parts 710 through 924............................................          2014          2015
8           23 CFR parts 940 through 973............................................          2015          2016
9           23 CFR parts 1200 through 1252..........................................          2016          2017
10          New parts and subparts..................................................          2017          2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal-Aid Highway Program
The FHWA has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, 
related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement 
and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the 
administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing 
Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. Section 
145 of title 23 expressly provides for a federally assisted State 
program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 
23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must 
meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work 
related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily 
relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in 
title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on th