issue-1996-07-16•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-16
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-16
issue-1996-07-16Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-16Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-18039 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18039]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA52-2-7155; FRL-5538-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule; extension of the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the comment period for a proposed rule
published on April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15744). In the April 9, 1996 proposed
rule, EPA proposed to approve reasonably available control technology
(RACT) requirements for 21 Pennsylvania sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). At the request of the
Pennsylvania Power Company, EPA is reopening the comment period through
August 2, 1996 only as it pertains to the RACT determinations for the
Pennsylvania Power-New Castle plant and International Paper-Hammermill
Division. (The comment period had been previously extended through June
28, 1996 (61 FR 29508).) All comments received on or before August 2,
1996, including those received between the close of the comment period
on June 28, 1996 and the publication of this document, will be entered
into the public record and considered by EPA before taking final action
on the proposed rule.
DATES: Comments are now due on or before August 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Kathleen Henry, Acting Chief,
Ozone and Mobile sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia H. Stahl at the EPA Region III
address listed above, (215) 566-2180, or via e-mail at
[email protected] pertaining to the reopening for the
comment period for the Pennsylvania Power-New Castle and International
Paper-Hammermill RACT determinations.
Dated: July 3, 1996.
W.T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-18039 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18006 Radiography Equipment Workshop
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18006]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 34
Radiography Equipment Workshop
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff plans to convene
a public workshop with representatives of Agreement States, NRC
radiography licensees, radiography equipment manufacturers and other
interested persons to discuss and solicit comments and concerns
relating to NRC regulations for radiography, specifically Sec. 34.20.
The purpose of the workshop is to establish whether there is a need for
rulemaking related to design and control of radiography equipment.
DATES: The workshop will be held on August 29, 1996. The meeting time
is: 8:30 am-5:00 pm or earlier if the business of the workshop is
concluded at an earlier time.
ADDRESSES: Holiday Inn & Hotel Suites, 7787 Katy Freeway (I-10 West),
Houston, Texas 77024. Telephone 1-800-822-8373 or (713) 681-5000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl A. Trottier, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T-9C24, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, Telephone: (301) 415-6232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the currently ongoing revision of NRC
regulations on radiography, 10 CFR Part 34, numerous comments were
received from NRC and Agreement State licensees and manufacturers of
radiography devices that expressed concerns in regard to Sec. 34.20 of
the regulations entitled ``Performance requirements for radiography
equipment.'' Many of these comments related to the proposed
requirements on accessories, referred to in the regulation as
``associated equipment,'' to the labelling of the various components,
and to the modification of radiography devices and components. In
addition, the NRC has received and is requesting public comment on a
petition for rulemaking filed by Amersham Corporation (61 FR 30837)
Docket No. PRM-34-5, that requests that the NRC amend its regulations
to remove reference to ``associated equipment'' from Sec. 34.20. In
light of this petition and comments received during the development of
the Part 34 final rule, the NRC is re-evaluating the applicability of
the standard ANSI N432-1980 to associated equipment.
Conduct of the Meeting: The workshop will be chaired by Cheryl A.
Trottier. The workshop will be conducted in a manner that will expedite
the orderly conduct of business. A transcript of the workshop will be
available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-
0001 on or about September 30, 1996.
The following procedures apply to public attendance at the
workshop:
1. Questions or statements from attendees other than participants
will be entertained as time permits.
2. Seating for the public will be on a first come, first-served
basis.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland on this 10th day of July, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bill M. Morris,
Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 96-18006 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18002 Proposed List of Fisheries for 1997
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37035-37041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 950605147-6189-04; I.D. 040996D]
RIN 0648-AH33
Proposed List of Fisheries for 1997
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes changes for 1997 to the List of Fisheries
(LOF) required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The proposed
LOF for 1997 reflects new information on commercial fisheries, marine
mammals, and interactions between commercial fisheries and marine
mammals. Under the MMPA, a commercial fishery is to be placed on the
LOF in one of three categories based upon the level of serious injuries
and mortalities that occur to marine mammals incidental to that
fishery. The LOF informs the public of the level of interactions with
marine mammals in various U.S. commercial fisheries and which fisheries
are subject to certain provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) such as the requirement to register for Authorization
Certificates. This action also proposes to revise the process for
registering for such a certificate, under certain circumstances, to
allow greater flexibility and to reduce associated paperwork and other
burdens.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by October 15,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or any other aspect of
the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed
rule should be sent to the above individual and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: NOAA Desk Officer,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Angliss, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-2322; Douglas Beach, Northeast Region, 508-281-9254;
Charles Oravetz, Southeast Region, 813-570-5301; James Lecky, Southwest
Region, 310-980-4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6140;
Steven Zimmerman, Alaska Region, 907-586-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
History of the List of Fisheries
The annual publication of a LOF placing all U.S. commercial
fisheries into one of three categories based on the levels of
incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in the
fishery is required by section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
as amended in 1994. Proposed and final regulations implementing section
118 of the MMPA were published in 1995 (60 FR 31666, June 17, 1995, and
60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995, respectively). These regulations replaced
those published to implement old section 114, and establish the
procedures NMFS now uses to manage incidental interactions between
marine mammals and U.S. commercial fisheries.
Definitions of the fishery classification criteria for Category I,
II, and III fisheries are found in the implementing regulations for
section 118 (50 CFR part 229). Because classification of fisheries in
the LOF depends on the definitions of the criteria, the following
explanation of the criteria is provided. Although this information is
available in the preambles to final rule implementing section 118 and
to the LOF for 1996, it is repeated here because of the importance of
this information to understanding how fisheries are classified.
Fishery Classification Criteria
The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-
specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all
fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of
individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on the rate,
in numbers of animals per year, of serious injuries and mortalities due
to commercial fishing relative to the Potential Biological Removal
(PBR) level for the each marine mammal stock.
Tier 1. If the total annual mortality and serious injury across all
fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10
percent of the PBR level of such a stock, then all fisheries
interacting with this stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise,
these fisheries are subject to the next tier to determine their
classification.
Tier 2--Category I. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock
in a given
[[Page 37036]]
fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2--Category II. Annual mortality and serious injury in a given
fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR
level.
Tier 2--Category III. Annual mortality and serious injury in a
given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 1, therefore, considers the cumulative fishery mortality and
serious injury for a particular stock, while Tier 2 considers fishery-
specific mortality for a particular stock. Additional details regarding
how threshold percentages between the categories were determined are
provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118.
Requirements for Vessels Participating in Category I and II
Fisheries
The primary functions of the LOF are to inform the public of the
levels of interactions with marine mammals in various commercial
fisheries and to identify fisheries for which efforts to reduce these
interactions may be necessary. In addition, the LOF informs the fishing
industry of which fisheries are subject to certain provisions of the
MMPA.
Registration. Fishers participating in Category I or II fisheries
must be registered under the MMPA, as required by 50 CFR 229.4. Unless
the Authorization Certificate program for a fishery is integrated and
coordinated with existing fishery license, registration or permit
systems and related programs, fishers must obtain a registration packet
from NMFS and submit the completed registration form and the required
registration fee to the NMFS Regional Office in which their fishery
operates. Normally, NMFS will send the fisher an Authorization
Certificate, program decal, and reporting forms within 60 days of
receiving the registration form and registration fee.
NMFS has successfully integrated registration under the MMPA with
state fishery registration in Washington and Oregon and is actively
pursuing integration with state fishery registration in Alaska. The
benefits of integration with existing programs have included a
reduction or elimination of fees for some commercial fishers, a
reduction in paperwork that must be completed by the fisher, and a
reduction in paperwork that must be completed by NMFS.
NMFS is proposing to provide additional flexibility for integrated
registration systems so that, if registration information is supplied
by NMFS or by a State participating in the integrated system for a
fishery, individual fishers are not required to fill out forms or
submit information but automatically will be issued Authorization
Certificates. NMFS will continue to integrate registration with
existing programs where possible.
Reporting. Vessel owners or operators, or fishers, in the case of
non-vessel fisheries, in Category I, II, or III fisheries must comply
with 50 CFR 229.6 and report all incidental mortality and injury of
marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to
NMFS Headquarters or appropriate NMFS Regional Office. ``Injury'' is
defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition,
any animal that ingests fishing gear, or any animal that is released
with fishing gear entangling, trailing or perforating any part of the
body is considered injured and must be reported. Instructions for
submission of reports are found at 50 CFR 229.6(a).
Observers. Finally, fishers participating in Category I and II
fisheries may be required, upon request, to accommodate an observer on
board their vessels. Observer requirements may be found at 50 CFR
229.7.
Timing of the Publication of the 1996 LOF
Because of other regulatory activities that occurred concurrently,
such as the preparation and publication of the final implementing
regulations for section 118 of the MMPA, the LOF for 1996 was published
on December 28, 1995 (60 FR 67063) instead of the target date of
October 1, 1995. Due to this delay, there was a very short time period
between the publication of the 1996 LOF and the publication of this
proposed LOF for 1997. NMFS focused its analysis for the proposed LOF
for 1997 on those fisheries it committed to future review in the 1996
LOF.
NMFS hopes to have available revised estimates of incidental
serious injury and mortality in U.S. commercial fisheries, and revised
PBR levels for the proposed LOF for 1998.
Proposed Changes to the LOF
The following specific changes are proposed for the LOF that would
take effect in 1997. Fisheries are placed into Category I, II, or III
based on the classification scheme defined in the final rule
implementing section 118 (60 FR 45086-45106, August 30, 1995). With the
exception of these specific proposed changes, NMFS proposes to retain
the fishery classifications as published in the final LOF for 1996.
Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean
U.S. Atlantic Tuna Purse Seine Fishery
The bluefin tuna purse seine fishery, which is largely prosecuted
in the Gulf of Maine, was placed in Category III in the 1994 LOF, but
was inadvertently omitted from the 1996 LOF. In 1995, five bluefin tuna
purse seine permit holders reported landings in August and September.
Because there is also a yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery, which is
largely prosecuted in the U.S. mid-Atlantic and was not previously
listed in the LOF, the two target species are combined in this proposed
LOF under the name ``U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine fishery''.
NMFS has received reports of interactions between the bluefin tuna
purse seine fishery and marine mammals. However, the marine mammals
were released uninjured. Because incidental serious injuries and
mortalities are not expected in this fishery, this fishery is proposed
to be placed in Category III.
Gulf of Maine Mackerel Trawl Fishery
A combined trawl fishery for squid, mackerel, and butterfish was
created in the 1996 LOF. A separate listing for a component of that
fishery, the Gulf of Maine mackerel trawl fishery, is duplicative and
is proposed to be deleted from the LOF. NMFS does not anticipate
significant effort in the mackerel trawl fishery in the Gulf of Maine
in the future.
Finfish Aquaculture Fishery
Records of harbor seal incidental mortality and serious injury have
been reported for this fishery, though at a level that does not warrant
a change in categories. However, NMFS proposes to add ``Harbor seal,
Western North Atlantic stock'' as a marine mammal stock that incurs
serious injury and mortality incidental to this fishery.
U.S. North Atlantic Coastal Gillnet Fisheries
NMFS proposes to change the names and revise the boundaries of the
``New England multispecies sink gillnet'' and the ``U.S. mid-Atlantic
coastal gillnet'' fisheries to reflect a change in the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to eliminate a boundary
overlap.
The ``New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery (including
species as defined in the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and
spiny dogfish and monkfish)'' is proposed to be changed to ``Northeast
Multispecies sink gillnet fishery (including but not limited
[[Page 37037]]
to species as defined in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan, dogfish, and monkfish).'' The southern boundary of the Northeast
Multispecies sink gillnet fishery is proposed to be changed from
71 deg.40' W. long. to 72 deg.30' W. long.
The ``U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery'', defined in the
1992 LOF as ``mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery (includes, but is
not limited to, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sturgeon,
black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden, scup, shad, striped bass,
sturgeon, weakfish, white perch, yellow perch),'' is proposed to be
changed to ``U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery (including but
not limited to, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sturgeon,
black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden, scup, shad, striped bass,
sturgeon, weakfish, white perch, yellow perch, dogfish, and
monkfish).'' The eastern boundary for the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet
fishery is proposed to be the 72 deg.30' W. long. line, running south
from the southern Long Island shoreline; the southern boundary for this
fishery is proposed to be a line drawn from the North Carolina-South
Carolina border eastward to the 72 deg.30' line.
NMFS anticipates having additional data from observer programs and
from other sources to use in re-evaluating these fisheries. In
addition, studies are underway to provide NMFS with new information on
the nature of these fisheries, which have traditionally been difficult
to define or observe because of their highly seasonal nature.
Offshore Monkfish Bottom Gillnet Fishery
The offshore monkfish bottom gillnet fishery was a new fishery that
was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF. However, because of the
location of the fishery and the type of gear typically employed, this
fishery should have been considered a new component of two existing
fisheries instead of a new, separate fishery. Monkfish will be added as
a target species to the Northeast Multispecies sink gillnet fishery and
to the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, as defined in the
above section on the U.S. North Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries.
Thus, fishers targeting monkfish using gillnets either will be in the
U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, and placed with that fishery
in Category II, or in the Northeast Multispecies sink gillnet fishery,
and placed with that fishery in Category I. Gulf of Maine and U.S. Mid-
Atlantic Lobster Fisheries.
1. Summary. Currently there are two lobster fisheries in the LOF,
the ``Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Inshore Lobster Trap/Pot
Fisheries'' and the ``Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Offshore Lobster
Trap/Pot Fisheries.'' Based on a review of 1990-1994 large whale
entanglement reports received by the agency and new information
received about the prosecution of the lobster fishery, the inshore and
offshore fisheries are proposed to be combined into a single fishery,
and referred to as the ``Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Lobster Trap/
Pot Fishery.'' This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I in
the 1997 LOF.
2. Combining lobster fisheries. The two lobster fisheries described
in the 1996 LOF are proposed to be combined because there is currently
no practical way to distinguish between ``inshore'' and ``offshore''
fisheries with regard to differences in marine mammal take. Definitions
of ``inshore'' and ``offshore'' or a discussion of what constitutes an
inshore fishery versus an offshore fishery were not presented in the
previous LOFs.
Generally, as the distances from shore increase, so do the size of
the pots, number of pots, and number and size of associated lines and
surface gear. There is no evidence to indicate that significant changes
in fishing operations occur at the boundary between state waters and
the exclusive economic zone. In some cases, gear used in state waters
is indistinguishable (larger pots and long strings, similar surface
gear) from that used 161 km (100 miles) offshore.
Comments are specifically requested from the public on whether
there is a practical operational distinction between the inshore and
offshore sectors of the fishery. Comments should consider factors such
as geographic location, gear characteristics, and fishing practices
such as tending gear. Comments also should consider how interactions
with marine mammals should be attributed if separate fisheries are
recommended.
3. Special problems. The lobster fishery is one of the largest
fisheries in the Northeast. It is estimated that there are 14,000
combined state and federal lobster trap/pot permit holders. This
information is based on a fishery from Maine through New Jersey,
although the fishery may extend as far south as Cape Hatteras in some
years.
A confounding problem in analyzing the impacts of this fishery is
that many whales are capable of dragging lobster gear some distance
from the location in which it was originally set. For example, a
northern right whale carried part of a lobster trawl from the Bay of
Fundy for three months before it was spotted in Massachusetts waters.
In addition, a 4.3-meter (14-foot) minke whale dragged a pair trap (a
two-trap string) 9.2 km (5.5 miles) before it was sighted and
disentangled. Thus, either of the fishers, upon returning to the
location at which they had originally set the gear, would not have
known whether an entanglement had occurred or whether the missing gear
was dislodged by mobile gear or for other reasons.
NMFS has provided observer coverage designed to sample the lobster
catch for this fishery, at least 66 days in some years, which has not
identified a marine mammal bycatch problem. Due to the whale behavior
described above and the size of the lobster fishery, the agency
believes that traditional observer coverage will not be effective in
this fishery. Alternative monitoring programs such as aerial surveys,
enhanced stranding and disentanglement network reporting, and
additional gear marking requirements may be considered as alternatives
to traditional observer coverage.
4. Interactions between the lobster fishery and marine mammals. As
described in the following analysis, serious injuries and/or
mortalities of marine mammals are known to occur in the lobster
fishery. An examination of large whale entanglement records from
sources other than an observer program reveals that large whale
entanglements occur in gear which is reported as ``lobster gear'',
``lobster pot warp'', ``line like lobster pot warp'', or in similar
terms. Generally, these reports describe the whale's condition and
provide a basic description of how the gear is entangling the animal so
that a rescue can be planned. The reports often do not contain the
detail necessary to assign the entanglements to a particular fishery or
location. On many occasions, the whale is not re-sighted, so a close
examination of the gear cannot be attempted. In some cases, additional
supportive information may be available to confirm the gear type and
origin, but sources of that information have not been fully
investigated at this time.
For this analysis, NMFS has been conservative in attributing
available records of entanglements to this fishery and has used only 18
of 42 (43 percent) of the available 1990-1994 line entanglement (as
opposed to net entanglement) records. The reasons for this approach
include: (1) Records have been excluded where gear was only reported as
``line'' or ``line like lobster pot warp'' since NMFS cannot confirm at
this time whether lobster pot warp or line from some other fixed or
mobile gear was involved; (2) records were
[[Page 37038]]
excluded if there was insufficient information on degree of injury or
marine mammal species identification; 3) records were excluded if the
whale disentangled itself; and 4) records were excluded if gear was
known to be of non-U.S. origin or gear was of unknown origin but the
entanglement was first sighted in non-U.S. waters. In addition, records
of entanglements prior to 1990 or after 1994 were not considered in
this analysis.
Tier 1 evaluation. Annual serious injury and mortality levels
across all fisheries for humpback, northern right whale, and minke
whale stocks interacting with this fishery exceed 10 percent of the PBR
levels for all three species.
Tier 2 evaluation. One record of serious injury and/or mortality of
a northern right whale, 11 records of serious injury and/or mortality
of humpback whales, and 6 records of serious injury and/or mortality of
minke whales were reported for this fishery from 1990-1994. These
records cannot be extrapolated to a total kill estimate and therefore
represent a minimum serious injury and/or mortality rate (from a 5-year
average) of 0.2 per year for northern right whales, 2.2 per year for
humpback whales, and 1.2 per year for minke whales. This rate is
greater than 1% but less than 50 percent of the PBR level for humpback
and minke whales, but equal to 50 percent of the PBR level for northern
right whales. Therefore this fishery is proposed to be placed in
Category I in the 1997 LOF.
In addition to the one right whale entanglement used in the above
analysis, the agency has received at least one report of a right whale
entanglement after 1994 as well as during the 1990-1994 period which
may be attributable to the lobster fishery, including a video of a
temporarily entangled right whale calf in Cape Cod Bay in 1995. Further
verification is anticipated on a 1993 report of an entangled right
whale sighted near Munson Canyon and one in 1994 sighted off Plum
Island, Massachusetts.
5. Registration of the lobster fishery. Annual registration for an
MMPA Authorization Certificate is required for participants in Category
I and II fisheries. NMFS will consider registration options for the
lobster fishery that will minimize the registration burden on lobster
fishers.
The lobster fishery is currently licensed under a combination of
several state and federal systems. NMFS will work with the New England
and Mid-Atlantic states to integrate registration under the MMPA with
state lobster fishery registration. NMFS intends to coordinate
registration for the federally managed lobster fishery with the MMPA
registration program.
The proposed rule would provide additional flexibility for
integrated registration systems so that, for qualified programs,
individual fishers would not be required to fill out forms or submit
registration information but automatically would be issued
registrations and Authorization Certificates. Once an alternative
registration system is developed, and a reduction in administration
costs is realized, NMFS will waive the registration fee for the lobster
fishery.
Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
Oregon Swordfish/Blue Shark Surface Longline Fishery
The Oregon swordfish/blue shark surface longline fishery was
classified as a Category II fishery in the 1996 LOF based on analogy
with other pelagic longline fisheries. NMFS proposes to separate this
fishery into two fisheries based upon the target species to reflect the
current licensing practices of the Developmental Fisheries Program in
the State of Oregon. The two fisheries would be the: ``Oregon swordfish
floating longline fishery'' and ``Oregon blue shark floating longline
fishery.'' There are 20 participants and 10 participants in these
fisheries, respectively. Both fisheries would remain in Category II in
1997.
California Squid Purse Seine Fishery
The California squid purse seine fishery was classified as a
Category III fishery in the 1996 LOF. However, the Pacific Scientific
Review Group, established under section 117 of the MMPA, recommended
that the squid purse seine fishery be monitored with an observer
program because of lack of information about marine mammal mortalities
and historical interactions between this fishery and short-finned pilot
whales.
Incidental mortality of pilot whales has occurred historically in
the California squid purse seine fishery. Twelve pilot whales were
observed and reported entangled in this manner during the 1980 season
(Miller et al. 1983). Miller et al. (1983) also reported that pilot
whales were occasionally shot in the squid purse fishery when lethal
deterrence was legal. Heyning and Woodhouse (1994) analyzed stranding
data between 1975-90 and found 14 short-finned pilot whales stranded or
floating dead (most during the late 1970's). They believe that these
pilot whales were incidentally killed in the squid purse seine fishery.
All animals that were examined had stomachs full of market squid; none
that were stranded had evidence of bullet holes, and commercial squid
boats were reported to have been working those areas at the time.
Short-finned pilot whales were once common off Southern California,
especially near Santa Catalina Island (Barlow et al. 1995). Dohl et al.
(1980) estimated that a resident population of 400 short-finned pilot
whales occurred in California, with a seasonal increase of up to 2,000
individuals. Short-finned pilot whales disappeared from the area after
the strong 1982-83 El Nino event, and few sightings were made between
1984-92 (Barlow et al. 1995). Because the 1991-92 aerial and shipboard
cetacean surveys only sighted one short-finned pilot whale, there is no
estimate of population size available at this time. However, six
sightings of short-finned pilot whales were made during another ship
survey off California in 1993, and a population estimate will be
available in the near future. In addition, short-finned pilot whales
are also incidentally killed in the offshore drift gillnet fishery for
thresher shark and swordfish. Thirteen short-finned pilot whales were
observed incidentally killed between 1990-94 in this fishery. Thus,
short-finned pilot are rare, but present in the area (Forney 1994).
Currently, purse seine vessels that fish for mackerel, tuna, and
anchovies (a Category II fishery) use the same gear to fish for squid
in the winter off southern California. The number of vessels has
remained relatively stable in southern California, with approximately
65 squid purse seine vessels in operation. Over the last few years,
squid purse seine effort and landings have increased. In the absence of
reliable information indicating the frequency of interaction, NMFS must
determine whether a fishery is a Category II fishery by evaluating
other factors (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995). Because of historical
evidence and possible significant interactions with the short-finned
pilot whale, NMFS is proposing to re-categorize the squid purse seine
fishery from Category III to Category II.
NMFS is concerned about the lack of recent data on which to base
this proposed fishery classification and about the apparent change in
distribution of the short-finned pilot whale in California waters. NMFS
specifically requests comments on these two aspects of this proposed
reclassification.
[[Page 37039]]
Re-evaluation of Other Fisheries
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Tuna, Shark, and Swordfish Hook and
Line/Harpoon Fisheries
An examination of entanglement records from sources other than
observer data reveals that large whale entanglements occur in gear
reported as ``tuna gear'', ``tuna dart'', ``line with tuna ball'', etc.
Generally, these reports describe the whale's condition and provide a
general description of how the gear is entangling the animal so that a
rescue can be planned. The reports often do not contain the detail
necessary to definitively identify the responsible fishery or the
location where the entanglement occurred. On many occasions, the whale
is not resighted, so a close examination of the gear cannot be
attempted. In some cases, additional supportive information may be
available to confirm the gear type and origin, but sources of that
information have not been fully investigated at this time. NMFS will
continue to monitor these entanglements and will verify the origin of
the gear if possible. Until the data can be verified and additional
information is obtained on the hook and line/harpoon fisheries for
tuna, shark and swordfish, NMFS proposes to retain the large pelagics
hook-and-line/harpoon fisheries in Category III in the LOF.
Other Fisheries
In the 1996 LOF, NMFS indicated that the annual incidental serious
injury and mortality levels of marine mammals in several fisheries
would be re-evaluated in a future LOF. New data were not yet available
for adequate re-evaluations of the level of serious injury and
mortality incidental to some Atlantic trap/pot fisheries, the Atlantic
inshore gillnet fisheries, the North Atlantic bottom trawl fishery, and
several other fisheries described in the 1996 LOF. NMFS recognizes that
incidental serious injuries and mortalities may occur at some level in
some of these fisheries and will continue to monitor these
interactions.
Definitions of Various U.S. North Atlantic Trawl Fisheries
Since the publication of the 1996 LOF, it has come to NMFS'
attention that there is confusion regarding the definitions of the
trawl fisheries. NMFS is concerned that the current fishery definitions
may not reflect current fishing practices. It is often difficult for a
fisher to determine under which category his/her vessel falls, and
therefore whether or not to register in the Marine Mammal Authorization
Program and be prepared for possible observer coverage. The absence of
a clear understanding of the definitions of certain fisheries may
confound the classification of certain fisheries in the LOF. Thus, NMFS
is specifically requesting comments from the public on appropriate
definitions of the trawl fisheries.
The following are the trawl fisheries as listed in the LOF for
1996. Definitions of the fisheries are included for those fisheries not
described by target species and gear type in the fishery name.
U.S. Atlantic Large Pelagics Pair Trawl Fishery
This fishery is in Category I and currently consists of seven pairs
of vessels. This fishery is characterized by the use of two vessels to
cooperatively haul trawl net gear.
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Trawl Fishery
This fishery is in Category II and currently consists of
approximately 260 vessels/persons. This fishery consists of the ``Mid-
Atlantic squid trawl'' and the ``Mid-Atlantic mackerel trawl''
fisheries as defined in the 1994 LOF. These fisheries were combined,
proposed to include the butterfish trawl fishery in order to parallel
the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries of the North Atlantic, and proposed to be
identified as the ``Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery'' in the proposed
LOF for 1996 (60 FR 31680, June 16, 1995). In response to a public
comment indicating that it was incorrect to call the squid trawl
fishery a mid-water trawl fishery, the name of the fishery was changed
in the final LOF for 1996 to the ``Atlantic squid, mackerel, and
butterfish trawl'' fishery to reflect the species targeted and to
parallel the relevant FMP (60 FR 67070, December 28, 1995).
North Atlantic Bottom Trawl Fishery
This fishery was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF and
currently consists of 1,052 vessels/persons. This fishery was renamed
from the ``Gulf of Maine, mid-Atlantic groundfish trawl'' fishery to
include a specific list of species targeted (60 FR 31681, June 16,
1995). Although the list of species targeted was not provided in the
final LOF for 1996, the proposed LOF for 1996 indicted that this
fishery targets species included in, but not limited to, all species
described in the Northeast Multispecies, and Summer Flounder FMPs and
scup and seabass which may be included in the Summer Flounder FMP at a
later date.
Gulf of Maine Mackerel Trawl Fishery
This fishery was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF and
currently consists of approximately 30 vessels. This fishery is
proposed to be combined with the squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl
fishery in this proposed LOF.
Mid-Atlantic Mixed Species Trawl Fishery
This fishery was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF and
currently consists of more than 1,000 vessels/persons.
Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic Sea Scallop Trawl Fishery
This fishery was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF and
currently consists of 215 vessels/persons.
Gulf of Maine, Southern North Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Herring
Trawl Fishery
This fishery was placed in Category III in the 1996 LOF and
currently consists of five vessels/persons.
U.S. Atlantic Monkfish Trawl Fishery
This fishery was a new fishery that was placed in Category III in
the 1996 LOF and consists of an unknown number of participants. This
fishery harvests monkfish in the deep waters off the Atlantic coast.
Some participants in this fishery use a modified beam trawl; most use
otter trawls. In addition, some participants in the scallop dredge
fishery target monkfish using dredge gear during off-days for scallops
as well as targeting scallops and monkfish simultaneously.
Bluefish, Croaker, and Flounder Trawl Fishery
This fishery is in Category III and currently includes
approximately 550 vessels/participants.
Other Proposed Changes
Annual registration is one of the requirements of the MMPA which
would apply to participants in Category I and II fisheries. NMFS is
considering registration options that will ensure compliance with the
MMPA while minimizing the registration burden to fishers. As noted
above, NMFS has successfully integrated registration under the MMPA
with state fishery registration in Washington and Oregon under current
regulations, is pursuing an integrated registration system with Alaska,
and would consider integrated registration systems for other fisheries
such as the Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery.
The proposed rule would provide additional flexibility for
integrated registration systems so that, if MMPA
[[Page 37040]]
Authorization Certificate registration information is supplied through
integration with state systems, interjurisdictional fisheries programs,
and federally managed fisheries, individual fishers would not required
to fill out forms or submit registration information but automatically
would be issued registrations and Authorization Certificates.
The benefits of integrating MMPA registration with existing fishery
registration or permit programs have included a reduction in paperwork
that must be completed by the fisher, a reduction in paperwork that
must be completed by NMFS, and reduced staff burdens for NMFS. NMFS
will consider reducing or waiving registration fees for the fisheries
where an integrated registration program can be arranged.
Classification
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Under existing regulations certain fishers must
register, obtain an Authorization Certificate, and pay a fee of $25.
Such a certificate authorizes the taking of certain marine mammals
incidental to commercial fishing operations. Currently, approximately
13,000 fishers are registered. This proposed rule, if adopted, would
require the registration of additional fishers in fisheries that are
classified as Category I and II, including approximately 14,000
participants in the Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Lobster Trap/Pot
Fishery. NMFS will consider waiving or reducing the registration fee
for fisheries where an integrated registration program can be arranged.
In any case, the fee, with respect to expected revenues, is not
considered significant. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis
was not prepared. This proposed rule has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain new collection-of-information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, proposed
regulatory changes are designed to provide additional flexibility and
to reduce paperwork burdens. However, the proposed reclassification of
some fisheries to Category I or II would be expected to increase the
number of fishers that may be subject to collection-of-information
requirements.
Although this collection has been approved previously by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0648-0224 and
0648-0225, because of new collection requirements as a result of the
reclassification of some fisheries to Category I and II, this proposed
rule is being resubmitted to OMB for review and approval. The average
reporting burden under the existing requirements is 0.25 hours for each
fisher who is required to register for an Authorization Certificate and
0.17 hours for each report of marine mammal injury or mortality. Those
burdens are not expected to change significantly if this proposed rule
is adopted, and may actually decrease as a result of proposed changes
in the registration system to reduce those burdens. Send comments
regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the
collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burdens, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, prepared an
environmental assessment (1995 EA) under the National Environmental
Policy Act for regulations to implement section 118 of the MMPA. The
1995 EA concluded that implementation of those regulations would not
have a significant impact on the human environment and is available
upon request (see ADDRESSES). For the proposed LOF, NMFS is constrained
by the MMPA with respect to the information that may be considered;
changes in the implementing regulations are minor and procedural in
nature and do not change the analysis or conclusion of the 1995 EA.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229
Administrative practice and procedure, Imports, Indians, Marine
Mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: July 10, 1996.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 229--AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE
MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 229.4, paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 229.4 Requirements for Category I and II fisheries.
(a) General. (1) In order to lawfully incidentally take a marine
mammal in the course of a commercial fishing operation in a Category I
or II fishery, a valid Certificate of Authorization authorizing such a
taking must be on board the vessel or, in the case of nonvessel
fisheries, must be in the possession of the person in charge of the
fishing operation. The owner of a vessel or nonvessel fishing gear is
responsible for obtaining a Certificate of Authorization.
(2) The administration of Authorization Certificates under this
part will be integrated and coordinated with existing fishery license,
registration, or permit systems and related fishery management programs
wherever possible. These fishery management programs may include, but
are not limited to, state or interjurisdictional fisheries programs. If
the administration of Authorization Certificates is integrated into a
fishery management program, NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the integrated program and summarizing how a person
may register under that program or how registration will be achieved.
Additional efforts will be made to contact participants in the affected
fishery via other appropriate means of notification.
(b) Registration. (1) The owner of a vessel, or for nonvessel gear
fisheries, the owner of gear who participates in a Category I or II
fishery is required to be registered for a Certificate of
Authorization.
(2) Unless a notice is published in the Federal Register announcing
an integrated Authorization Certificate/fishery management program, the
owner of a vessel, or for nonvessel fishery, the owner of the gear must
submit the following information using the format specified by NMFS:
(i) Name, address, and phone number of owner;
(ii) Name, address, and phone number of operator, if different from
owner, unless the name of the operator is not known or has not been
established at the time the registration is submitted;
[[Page 37041]]
(iii) For a vessel fishery, vessel name, length, and U.S. Coast
Guard documentation number or state vessel registration number, and if
applicable, state commercial vessel license number and for a nonvessel
fishery, a description of the gear and state commercial license number,
if applicable.
(iv) A list of all Category I and II fisheries in which the fisher
may engage during next calendar year;
(v) The approximate time, duration, and location of each such
fishery operation, and the general type and nature of use of the
fishing gear and techniques used; and
(vi) A certification signed and dated by the owner of an authorized
representative of the owner as follows: ``I hereby certify that I am
responsible for the vessel or gear described in this registration, that
I have reviewed all information contained in this registration, and
that the information is true and complete to the best of my
knowledge.''
(3) If a notice is published in the Federal Register announcing an
integrated Authorization Certificate/fishery management program, the
owner of a vessel, or for nonvessel fishery, the owner of the gear may
register by following the directions provided in that notice. In some
cases, an integrated Authorization Certificate/fishery management
program may automatically register participants in a fishery for
Authorization Certificates. If a person receives a registration to
which he or she is not entitled or if the registration contains
incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, the person shall
notify NMFS within 10 days following receipt. A registration must be
signed and dated by the owner or an authorized representative of the
owner unless it contains incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete
information. If for some reason a person who expects to receive
automatic registration does not receive that registration within the
time specified in the notice announcing the integrated Authorization
Certificate/fishery management program, the person shall notify NMFS as
directed in the notice or may apply for registration by submitting the
information required under paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (vi).
* * * * *
(e) Issuance. (1) NMFS will issue an Authorization Certificate and
annual decal to an owner or a representative of the owner who submits a
completed registration and the required fee, or is registered under an
integrated Authorization Certificate/fishery management program and has
paid any required fee, provided that the registrant has complied with
the requirements of this section and Secs. 229.6 and 229.7.
(2) NMFS will renew an Authorization Certificate and issue a new
annual decal to an owner or a representative of the owner who submits
updated registration or renewal registration which includes a statement
(yes/no) whether any marine mammals were killed or injured during the
current or previous calendar year and the required fee, or who is
registered under an integrated Authorization Certificate/fishery
management program and has paid any required fee, provided that the
registrant has complied with the requirements of this section and
Secs. 229.6 and 229.7.
(3) If a person receives an Authorization Certificate or an annual
decal to which he or she is not entitled, the person shall notify NMFS
within 10 days following receipt. In order for a Authorization
Certificate to be valid, the certification must be signed and dated by
the owner or an authorized representative of the owner.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18002 Filed 7-11-96; 11:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17997 Manufacturers Excise Taxes-Firearms and Ammunition (95R-055P)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37022-37023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17997]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 53
[Notice No. 831]
RIN 1512-AB42
Manufacturers Excise Taxes-Firearms and Ammunition (95R-055P)
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of
the Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments on temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations portion of this Federal Register,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is issuing temporary
regulations to simplify the regulations in 27 CFR Part 53 relating to
exemption certificates. The regulations are being revised to give
taxpayers the option of using a preprinted document as exemption
certificates and vendor(vendee) statements or designing their own
certificates and statements using specified information. ATF is
requesting comments on the temporary regulations before issuing the
final regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Chief, Regulations Branch, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20226-
0221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou Blake, Regulations Branch,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20226; (202-927-8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866. Therefore, a regulatory
assessment is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
or impose or otherwise cause an increase in the reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance burdens on a substantial number of
small entities. The factual basis for such certification is that this
revision does not add any new requirement for reporting or
recordkeeping. This revision serves only to clarify and streamline
current regulatory requirements. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code, this proposed regulation has been submitted to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
comment on its impact on small business.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law
96-511, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
part 1329, do not apply to this notice because there are no new
reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Public Participation
ATF requests comments on the proposed regulations from all
interested persons. Comments received on or before the closing date
will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be
given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before the closing date.
ATF will not recognize any material in comments as confidential.
Comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material which the
commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure
to the public should not be included in the comment. The name of the
person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally
at a public hearing should submit his or her request in writing, to the
Director within the 60-day comment period. The Director, however,
reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether
a public hearing is necessary.
[[Page 37023]]
The temporary regulations in this issue of the Federal Register
amend the regulations in 27 CFR Part 53. For the text of the temporary
regulations, see T.D. ATF-380 published in the Rules and Regulations
section of this issue of the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The author of this document is Mary Lou Blake, Regulations Branch,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Signed: May 30, 1996.
Bradley A. Buckles,
Acting Director.
Approved: June 10, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-17997 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17985 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Threatened Status for Copperbelly Water Snake
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37034-37035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17985]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AB75
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of
Comment Period on Proposed Threatened Status for Copperbelly Water
Snake
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides notice that
the comment period on the proposed threatened status for the
copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) is reopened.
This snake occupies portions of southern Michigan, northwestern Ohio
and adjacent northeastern Indiana, southern Indiana, southeastern
Illinois, and western Kentucky.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by
September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 South Walker Street,
Bloomington, Indiana 47403-2121.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hudak, Field Supervisor, (see
ADDRESSES section), 812/334-4261 extension 200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A proposed rule to list the copperbelly water snake (sometimes
referred to as the northern copperbelly water snake) as threatened was
published on August 18, 1993 (58 FR 43860). A public hearing on the
proposal was held in Indianapolis on April 4, 1994, and the comment
period for this proposed rule was extended or reopened five times, with
the last comment period closing on September 30, 1995 (60 FR 42140,
August 15, 1995).
Following the December 15, 1994, to January 13, 1995, comment
period the Service again began evaluating all available scientific and
commercial data concerning the species' status. On April 10, 1995,
Public Law 104-06 imposed a moratorium which prevented the addition of
any species to the Threatened and Endangered Species List. Thus, the
Service was prevented from making a final decision on the proposed
threatened classification of the copperbelly water snake. The
moratorium remained in effect until April 26, 1996, at which time
Public Law 104-134 was enacted, providing for the termination of the
listing moratorium by the President.
The Service is required to use the best available scientific and
commercial data in making listing determinations under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The Service's Final Listing
Priority Guidance, published May 16, 1996, (61 FR 24722-24728) notes
that the inaction forced upon the Service by the moratorium and related
funding limitations may result in a need to reopen comment periods due
to unresolved questions or the potential for the existence of new
information. Pursuant to this Guidance, it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to ensure that the Service has the best scientific and
commercial information currently available to use in making a final
listing determination for the copperbelly water snake.
During this comment period the Service desires to receive any
scientific and commercial data that have become available since the
previous comment period closed on September 30, 1995. If significant
data are provided that are likely to influence the listing
determination, the Service will notify the public of the data's
existence and will provide copies to parties that request them. If
necessary, the Service will then extend or reopen the comment period to
allow sufficient time for interested parties to review and comment on
the new data.
[[Page 37035]]
The Service expects to receive a report on the biological status of
the northern population (southern Michigan and the adjacent portions of
Indiana and Ohio) of the copperbelly water snake during this comment
period. Parties wishing to receive a copy of the northern population
report or other significant data received during this comment period
are invited to furnish their address to the Service.
Therefore, by this notice the Service is reopening the comment
period to solicit and receive additional data and comments on the
proposal and to receive addresses from parties who want to receive a
copy of the northern population report. The Service is especially
interested in receiving data that have become available since the
September 30, 1995, close of the previous comment period.
Data and comments which have been previously submitted do not need
to be resubmitted. When the Service makes its final determination
whether to list the copperbelly water snake as a threatened species all
previously received materials will be considered along with newly
submitted material. Data and comments received during this and earlier
comment periods may lead to final regulations that differ from the
proposal of August 18, 1993.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota
55111-4056 (612-725-3536).
Authority
Authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 10, 1996.
William F. Hartwig,
Regional Director, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN.
[FR Doc. 96-17985 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17983 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37019-37022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17983]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-72-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all deHavilland DHC-8-100
and -300 series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive
inspections to detect loose bolts at the retract actuator support
fitting of the main landing gear, and various follow-on actions, if
necessary. That AD was prompted by a report of loose actuator
supporting bolts and cracks in the relief radius of the boss at the
forward surface of the fittings. This action would add a requirement to
accomplish a new modification, which, when accomplished, would
terminate the repetitive inspections. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent loss of hydraulic systems and
reduced controllability of the airplane due to loose actuator support
bolts or cracks in the relief radius of the boss at the forward surface
of the fittings.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-72-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division,
Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5. This information
may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jon Hjelm, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-173,
FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and
[[Page 37020]]
Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New
York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7523; fax (516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-72-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-72-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On September 12, 1991, the FAA issued AD 91-20-12, amendment 39-
8046 (56 FR 47901, September 23, 1991), applicable to all de Havilland
Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes. That amendment superseded AD
91-15-51, amendment 39-8016 (56 FR 41928, August 26, 1991), to add de
Havilland Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes to the applicability; to
require repetitive inspections to detect loose bolts at the retract
actuator support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG); and, if
necessary, to require a magnetic particle inspection, replacement of
loose bolts, and replacement of cracked fittings. That action was
prompted by a report of loose actuator supporting bolts and cracks in
the relief radius of the boss at the forward surface of the fittings.
The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent these conditions,
which could result in loss of the hydraulic systems and reduced
controllability of the airplane.
In the preamble to AD 91-20-12, the FAA indicated that inspections
of the MLG's were considered ``interim action'' and that further
rulemaking action was being considered. As a follow-on action from that
determination, the FAA is now proposing additional, final action.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
Since the issuance of AD 91-20-12, de Havilland has issued Service
Bulletin S.B. 8-54-34, Revision `A', dated July 21, 1995, which
describes procedures for modification of the frame and the retraction
actuator fitting of the MLG. This modification involves removing the
enamel application from the interface surfaces of the frame and
fitting.
This modification will allow the bracket to seat properly on the
MLG frame and will prevent preload stress in the bracket.
De Havilland has also issued Service Bulletin S.B. 8-54-27,
Revision `B', dated August 22, 1994, which also describes procedures
for modification of the frame and the retraction actuator fitting of
the MLG. This modification involves installing modified brackets with
improved fasteners. This modified bracket incorporates a material
change to preclude hydrogen embrittlement cracking.
Accomplishment of these modifications eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspections.
Transport Canada Aviation classified these service bulletins as
mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-91-25R2 in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
Canada.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the Transport Canada Aviation has
kept the FAA informed of the situation described above., The FAA has
examined the findings of Transport Canada Aviation, reviewed all
available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for
products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the
United States.
Explanation of the Requirements of the Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 91-20-12. The
proposed AD would continue to require repetitive inspections to detect
loose bolts at the retract actuator support fitting of the MLG; and, if
necessary, to require a magnetic particle inspection, replacement of
loose bolts, and replacement of cracked fittings. In addition, this new
proposed AD would require modification of the frame and the retraction
actuator fitting of the MLG, which would constitute terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins
described previously.
Operators should also note that the applicability of the proposed
rule differs from the current applicability of AD 91-20-12. The
proposed AD would limit the applicability to include only those
airplanes having serial numbers 3 through 400 inclusive, except serial
number 391. The FAA points out that, during production, Modifications
8/1830 and 8/2049 were installed on Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series
airplanes having serial number 400 and subsequent; therefore, these
airplanes are not subject to the requirements of this AD.
Differences Between Proposed AD and Relevant Service Information
Operators should note that, unlike the effectivity listing
specified in de Havilland Service Bulletin 8-54-27, Revision `B', dated
August 22, 1994, the proposed AD would require that the modification be
accomplished on Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes, serial
numbers 3 through 400 inclusive, except serial number 391. The FAA
points out that de Havilland inadvertently excluded the serial numbers
of some affected airplanes from the effectivity listing of its service
bulletin.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 125 de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300
series airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this
proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 91-20-12, and
retained in this proposed AD, take approximately
[[Page 37021]]
1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60
per work hour. Based on these figures the cost impact on U.S. operators
of the actions currently required is estimated to be $7,500, or $60 per
airplane.
The installation of modified brackets with new fasteners that would
be required by this proposal would take approximately 10 work hours per
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Required parts would cost approximately $3,500 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the modification requirement of this
proposal on U.S. operators is estimated to be $512,500 or $4,100 per
airplane.
The removal of the enamel application (Modification 8/1830) that
would be required by this proposal would take approximately 5 work
hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of
the proposed requirements of this AD is estimated to be $37,500, or
$300 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not 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, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8046 (56 FR
47901, September 23, 1991), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 95-NM-72-AD, Supersedes AD 91-20-12,
Amendment 39-8046.
Applicability: Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes, serial
numbers 3 through 400 inclusive, except serial number 391;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent loss of hydraulic systems and reduced controllability
of the airplane due to loose actuator support bolt or cracks in the
relief radius of the boss at the forward surface of the fittings,
accomplish the following:
(a) For Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes: Within 24 hours after
September 9, 1991 (the effective date of AD 91-15-51, amendment 39-
8016), inspect the three actuator attachment fitting bolts on the
right- and left-hand main landing gears (MLG) to detect loose bolts
by applying a torque of not less than 10 foot-pounds to each bolt.
(1) If no loose bolt is found as a result of the inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat this inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 landings.
(2) If any loose bolt is found as a result of the inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, accomplish paragraphs
(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to further flight, replace the loose bolt with a new
bolt of the same part number.
(ii) Within 250 landings after October 7, 1991 (the effective
date of 91-20-12, amendment 39-8046) accomplish paragraphs
(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Remove the associated support fitting having part number (P/
N) 85410084.
(B) Perform a magnetic particle inspection to detect cracks
throughout the fitting, paying particular attention to the relief
radius at the forward surface boss. If any crack is detected as a
result of this inspection, prior to further flight, replace the
fitting with a serviceable part.
(iii) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 landings.
(b) For Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes: Within 250 landings
after October 7, 1991 (the effective date of AD 91-20-12, amendment
39-8046), inspect the three actuator attachment fitting bolts on the
right- and left-hand MLG's to detect loose bolts by applying a
torque of not less than 10 foot-pounds to each bolt.
(1) If no loose bolt is found as a result of the inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD, repeat this inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 landings.
(2) If any loose bolt is found as a result of the inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, accomplish paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to further flight, replace the loose bolt with a new
bolt of the same part number.
(ii) Within 250 landings after October 7, 1991 (the effective
date of AD 91-20-12, amendment 39-8046), accomplish (b)(2)(ii)(A)
and (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Remove the associated support fitting (P/N 85410084 for
Model DHC-8-301 airplanes, and P/N 85411701 for Model DHC-8-311
airplanes).
(B) Perform a magnetic particle inspection to detect cracks
throughout the fitting, pay particular attention to the relief
radius at the forward surface boss. If any crack is detected as a
result of this inspection, prior to further flight, replace the
fitting with a serviceable part.
(iii) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 landings.
(c) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), as applicable, of this AD.
Accomplishment of this paragraph constitutes terminating action for
the inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.
(1) For Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes, having serial
numbers 3 through 400 inclusive, except serial number 391: Modify
the frame and the retraction actuator fitting of the MLG, in
accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8-54-34, Revision
`A', dated July 21, 1995.
(2) For Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes, having serial
number 3 through 332 inclusive: Modify the retraction actuator
fitting of the MLG, in accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin
S.B. 8-54-27, Revision `B', dated August 22, 1994.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that
[[Page 37022]]
provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by
the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, New York ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch ANM-113.
(e) Special flight permits may be used in accordance with
section 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. Any loose bolt
found as a result of the inspections required by paragraph (a) or
(b) of this AD, must be retorqued prior to application for a special
flight permit. The upper bold, P/N 81812-7-22, must be retorqued to
36-39 foot-pounds; the lower two bolts, P/N 81812-6-22, must be
retorqued to 22-25 foot-pounds.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 10, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17983 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17964 West Virginia Permanent Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37023-37024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17964]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 948
[WV-075-FOR]
West Virginia Permanent Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the pubic comment period on a proposed
amendment to the West Virginia permanent regulatory program
(hereinafter referred to as the West Virginia program) under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The
amendment revises the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation
Regulations concerning topsoil substitutes. The amendment is intended
to improve the effectiveness of the West Virginia program.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 4:00 p.m. on July
31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be mailed or hand delivered to Mr. James C. Blankenship, Jr., Director,
Charleston Field Office at the address listed below
Copies of the proposed amendment, the West Virginia program, and
the administrative record on the West Virginia program are available
for public review and copying at the addresses below, during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting the OSM Charleston Field Office.
Mr. James C. Blankenship, Jr., Director, Charleston Field Office,
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 Virginia
Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Telephone: (304) 347-7158
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 10 McJunkin Road,
Nitro, West Virginia 25143, Telephone: (304) 759-0515
In addition, copies of the proposed amendment are available for
inspection during regular business hours at the following locations:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Morgantown Area
Office, 75 High Street, Room 229, P.O. Box 886, Morgantown, West
Virginia 26507, Telephone: (304) 291-4004
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Beckley Area
Office, 323 Harper Park Drive, Suite 3, Beckley, West Virginia 25801,
Telephone: (304) 255-5265
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James C. Blankenship, Jr., Director, Charleston Field Office;
Telephone: (304) 347-7158.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the West Virginia Program
On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the West Virginia program. Background information on the West
Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of the approval can be found in the
January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915-5956). Subsequent
actions concerning the West Virginia program and previous amendments
are codified at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated April 2, 1996 (Administrative Record Number WV-
1024), the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP)
submitted an amendment to its approved permanent regulatory program
pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17. The amendment contains revisions to the West
Virginia Surface mining Reclamation Regulations (CSR Sec. 38-2-1 et
seq.). The proposed amendments were announced in the April 23, 1996,
Federal Register (61 FR 17859). However, a proposed amendment to
Sec. 38-2-14.3(c) concerning topsoil substitutes was inadvertently
omitted from that notice. Therefore, OSM is reopening the public
comment period only on the following proposed amendment.
Section 38-2-14.3(c)(2) is amended by adding the word
``reasonably'' immediately following the word ``best.'' As amended,
subsection (c)(2) reads as follows: ``The resulting soil medium is the
best reasonably available in the permit area to support vegetation;
and.''
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now
seeking comments on the proposed amendment submitted by the State of
West Virginia to its permanent regulatory program. Specifically, OSM is
seeking comments on the revision to the State's regulations that was
submitted on April 2, 1996 (Administrative Record No. WV-1024), and is
identified above. Comments should address whether the proposed
amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR
732.15. If the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of the
West Virginia program.
Writen Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issue
proposed in this notice and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under dates or at locations other than the OSM Charleston Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12291
On July 12, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted
OSM an exemption from sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Executive Order 12291
(Reduction of Regulatory Burden ) for actions related to approval or
conditional approval of State regulatory programs, actions and program
amendments. Therefore, preparation of a regulatory impact analysis is
not necessary, and OMB regulatory review is not required.
Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards
[[Page 37024]]
are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs
and program amendments since each such program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C.
1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10), decisions
on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted
by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal
regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731
and 732 have been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: July 8, 1996.
Tim L. Dieringer,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-17964 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17960 Natural Resource Damages AssessmentsType B Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37030-37032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17960]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37031]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
43 CFR Part 11
RIN 1090-AA29 and 1090-AA43
Natural Resource Damages Assessments--Type B Procedures
AGENCY: Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior is revising the regulations for
assessing natural resource damages resulting from a release or
discharge of a hazardous substance in compliance with a statutory
biennial review requirement and a court remand. The regulations provide
procedures that Federal, State, and Tribal natural resource trustees
may use to develop plans for restoring injured natural resources and to
determine appropriate compensation due from potentially responsible
parties. The regulations include an administrative process for
conducting assessments as well as two types of technical procedures for
the actual quantification of injuries and damages. ``Type A''
procedures are standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring
minimal field observation in cases of minor discharges or releases in
certain environments. ``Type B'' procedures are procedures for detailed
assessments in other cases. This document solicits comment on potential
revisions to the administrative process and the type B procedures in
light of recently promulgated natural resource damage assessment
regulations for oil discharges.
DATES: Comments will be accepted through September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent in duplicate to the Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance, ATTN: NRDA Rule--Type B, Mail Stop
2340, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC
20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Morton at (202) 208-3302.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
This document solicits comment on the revision of regulations for
assessing natural resource damages for releases or discharges of
hazardous substances. The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (CERCLA)
provides that certain categories of persons, known as potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), are liable for natural resource damages
when a release of a hazardous substance has resulted in injury to,
destruction of, or loss of natural resources. 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).
Natural resource damages fund restoration, replacement, or acquisition
of the equivalent of the injured natural resources. 42 U.S.C.
9607(f)(1).
Only those Federal, State, and Tribal officials designated as
natural resource trustees may recover natural resource damages. CERCLA
defines ``State'' to include:
The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas, and any other territory or possession over
which the United States has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. 9601(27).
Trustees may recover damages for those natural resource injuries
that are not fully remedied by response actions as well as the public
interim losses from the date of the release until the injured natural
resources have fully recovered or been restored. Trustees may also
recover the reasonable costs of assessing natural resource damages.
CERCLA requires the President to promulgate regulations for the
assessment of natural resource damages under CERCLA and the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (CWA). 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(1). CWA provides
authority for Federal and State trustees to recover natural resource
damages resulting from discharges of hazardous substances into
navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. 1321(f)(4) and (5).
The regulations must identify the ``best available'' procedures for
assessing natural resource damages. 42 U.S.C 9651(c)(2). CERCLA
requires that the natural resource damages assessment regulations
include two types of assessment procedures. ``Type A'' procedures are
``standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring minimal
field observation.'' 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(2)(A). ``Type B'' procedures are
``alternative protocols for conducting assessments in individual
cases.'' 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(2)(B). If trustees and PRPs fail to reach
settlement, Federal and State trustees who performed their assessments
in accordance with the natural resource damage assessment regulations
will receive a rebuttable presumption in litigation of their claims. 42
U.S.C. 9607(f)(2)(C). The President delegated the responsibility for
promulgating the natural resource damages assessment regulations to the
Department of the Interior (the Department). E.O. 12316, as amended by
E.O. 12580.
Hazardous Substance Regulations
The Department has issued regulations that provide an
administrative process for conducting natural resource damages
assessments as well as technical type A and type B procedures for the
actual quantification of injuries and damages resulting from hazardous
substance releases and discharges. The Department recently published a
final rule containing two type A procedures--one for minor releases and
discharges in coastal and marine environments and the other for minor
releases and discharges in the Great Lakes. 61 FR 20560 (May 7, 1996).
In State of Ohio v. United States Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d
432 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Ohio v. Interior), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded portions of the original
administrative process and the type B procedures that were issued in
1986. On March 25, 1994, the Department published a final rule in
response to the Ohio v. Interior remand. 59 FR 14261. This final rule
is currently being challenged in Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. United
States Department of the Interior, No. 93-1700 and consolidated cases
(D.C. Cir.).
The March 25, 1994, rule addressed all but one issue in the Ohio v.
Interior remand--the calculation of damages for interim lost nonuse
values. The Department's regulations currently provide that trustees
can recover from PRPs the cost of implementing a publicly reviewed plan
for restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, and/or acquiring the
equivalent of the natural resources injured by a hazardous substance
release or discharge. The regulations also authorize trustees to
recover the economic values lost by the public pending restoration or
recovery of the injured resources. These values are known as
``compensable values'' and may include ``use'' and ``nonuse'' values,
if they can be reliably calculated. Trustees must eventually determine
how to spend damages recovered for compensable values on restoration
actions but only after the assessment has been completed and the funds
have been recovered.
On May 4, 1994, the Department published a notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning the reliability of calculating nonuse values
using the contingent valuation methodology. 59 FR 23097. The Department
then published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking announcing the
start of an overall review of the administrative process and the type B
procedures. 59 FR 52749 (Oct. 19, 1994). The Department must review the
[[Page 37032]]
hazardous substance natural resource damages assessment regulations,
and revise them as appropriate, every two years. 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(3).
The Department now intends to develop a proposed rule that will
address both the biennial review and the remaining aspect of the Ohio
v. Interior remand and that will supersede the May 4, 1994, proposed
rule. This document solicits comment on inclusion in this upcoming
proposed rule of the concepts of the recently promulgated oil natural
resource damages assessment regulations.
New Oil Regulations
On January 5, 1996, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) published a final rule under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) for assessing natural resource
damages caused by oil spills. 61 FR 439. The oil regulations adopt a
new approach to several aspects of natural resource damages assessment.
One particularly significant and promising feature of the oil
regulations is the adoption of a new method of measuring damages based
on unified restoration planning. The oil regulations extend the
hazardous substance regulations' emphasis on restoration to all
elements of a natural resource damages claim, including compensation
for interim loss of injured natural resources and resource services.
Under the oil regulations, a natural resource damages claim is
based on a unified restoration plan developed during the assessment
that incorporates both ``primary'' restoration actions to return
injured resources and services to the condition that would have existed
if the discharge had not occurred and ``compensatory'' restoration
actions to compensate the public for interim loss of resource services.
The oil regulations fundamentally change the role of economic
valuation in developing claims for interim loss of injured natural
resources and resource services. Unlike the current hazardous substance
regulations, the new oil regulations require trustees to determine
compensation for interim losses based on the cost of appropriately
scaled compensatory restoration actions, rather than economic values
per se.
The Department has indicated that during the biennial review it
will work to ensure the maximum consistency appropriate between the
hazardous substance regulations and the oil regulations. 59 FR 52752.
The Department believes that the unified restoration planning approach
in the oil regulations is one appropriate option for biennial reforms
to the hazardous substance regulations designed to expedite
restoration, reduce litigation, and encourage cooperative efforts among
trustees and PRPs.
The Department also believes that resolution of the Ohio v.
Interior remand concerning the calculation of nonuse values should be
considered within the same context as the overall biennial review of
the hazardous substance regulations. As NOAA has stated in connection
with its new method of measuring damages, ``[t]he possible use of
contingent valuation (CV) and other stated-preference methods of
valuation to determine what scale of compensatory restoration provides
an equivalent value to the lost services avoids many problems
identified by commenters regarding the use of CV to calculate a dollar
value for the damages.'' 61 FR 442.
Issues for Comment
To assist in the development of a proposed rule, the Department is
soliciting comment on how the hazardous substance regulations should be
revised to ensure maximum appropriate consistency with the oil
regulations and comply with Ohio v. Interior. The Department is
particularly interested in comments on revising the hazardous substance
regulations to incorporate the new method for measuring damages in the
oil regulations. The Department also solicits comment on revising the
hazardous substance regulations to reflect the more streamlined
approach to injury assessment contained in the oil regulations. Whereas
the current hazardous substance regulations contain relatively detailed
standards and procedures for all aspects of injury determination and
quantification, the oil regulations provide a general framework of
decision criteria within which trustees determine on a case-by-case
basis how best to assess injury. The Department solicits comment on the
suitability of the new approaches in the oil regulations for the
hazardous substance regulations, in light of the differences between
oil spills and hazardous waste sites.
Dated: July 10, 1996.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-17960 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17945 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Allow Longline Pot Gear
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37041-37042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960703187-6187-01; I.D. 062096B]
RIN 0648-AI96
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Allow
Longline Pot Gear
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to allow the use of longline pot
gear in the directed sablefish fishery in the Bering Sea. Sablefish
hook-and-line fishermen in the Bering Sea have faced increasing
depredation of hooked sablefish by killer whales. The use of longline
pot gear would effectively prevent such depredation. This action is
necessary to protect Bering Sea sablefish harvests and is intended to
resolve a conflict between fishermen and a species protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA).
DATES: Comments must be received by August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Room 453, 709 W. 9th Street,
Juneau, AK 99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attention: Lori
J. Gravel.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action
may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605
West 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99510-2252.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hale, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Groundfish Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).
The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) and approved by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). This FMP,
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR parts 600, and 679, provides for
changes to gear restrictions by regulatory amendment without amendment
to the FMP. The regulations pertaining to this action, at Sec. 679.24,
specify gear types that may legally be employed to harvest sablefish in
the Bering Sea. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are protected under the
MMPA, which prohibits harassment of marine mammals and authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to consult with and assist regional fishery
management councils to reduce takings of marine mammals incidental to
commercial fishing operations.
In September 1995, commercial fishing industry representatives
reported to the Council that the annual Bering Sea sablefish quota had
been underharvested due in part to interactions with killer whales.
While fishermen retrieve their hook-and-line gear when fishing for
sablefish, killer whales frequently pick sablefish off the hooks.
Sablefish consumed by killer whales in this manner represent
undocumented fishing mortality. Even though the sablefish quota may be
underharvested by fishermen, overall fishing mortality could actually
be higher than the specified quota, resulting in overharvests. Although
NMFS is not able to quantify the amount of killer whale-caused fishing
mortality, such mortality is a conservation concern to the extent that
the amount of overharvests introduces
[[Page 37042]]
uncertainty in management of the fishery.
Attempts to deter the whales by various non-lethal means have
proven unsuccessful. Research referenced in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this
action concluded that the only viable method for reducing killer whale
interactions with this fishery is to harvest with longline pot gear
instead of hook-and-line gear, and thus deny killer whales the
opportunity to take fish being hauled to the surface.
Currently, regulations at Sec. 679.24(b)(1)(iii) prohibit longline
pot gear in the Bering Sea to prevent the pre-emption of fishing
grounds by one gear-type. Gear conflicts and the pre-emption of fishing
grounds by a single gear-type arise from the use of diverse gear in the
same area over the same period of time. The nature of longline pot gear
and strategies used in fishing longline pots deter fishermen from
deploying hook-and-line and trawl gear on fishing grounds where
longline pot gear is set. This effectively pre-empts common fishing
grounds. For this reason, the Council chose in 1991 to prohibit the use
of longline pot gear in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries.
Regulations prohibiting longline pot gear were promulgated on August
21, 1992 (57 FR 37906).
In 1995, the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for fixed gear
Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries extended sablefish seasons in
Federal waters off Alaska to a period of 8 months. By allowing the
fleet to spread its operations over time, the IFQ Program greatly
reduced the possibility of congestion and pre-emption of common fishing
grounds. The reintroduction of longline pot gear into the Bering Sea
fisheries would pose less of a grounds pre-emption threat now compared
to 1992 when longline pots were prohibited. Authorizing the use of
longline pot gear, with limitations, in the Bering Sea directed
sablefish fishery would allow fishermen to use this gear and reduce
interactions with killer whales.
In recommending this action, the Council expressed concern that,
despite the decreased likelihood of grounds pre-emption, fishermen
using traditional hook-and-line gear in relatively small boats may be
pre-empted from grounds by fishermen in larger boats using longline pot
gear. Therefore, this action would establish a Bering Sea closure to
longline pot gear from June 1 through June 30. Lifting the prohibition
on longline pot gear for sablefish fisheries would reduce interactions
with killer whales, while the month-long closure would continue to
provide a period for conducting other fisheries without the potential
for gear conflicts with longline pot gear.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The rule would reduce a restriction by allowing
fishermen to use longline pot gear to harvest sablefish. At the present
time, fishermen may use only hook-and-line gear, a gear subject to
depredation of harvests by killer whales. While a gear switch would
have direct costs, a switch would be voluntary and presumably would
only be made if the fisherman judge that the costs associated with
changing gear would be offset by the greater landed weight of sablefish
possible in the absence of killer whale depredation.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that fishing
activities conducted under this rule would have no adverse impacts on
marine mammals. The express purpose of this rule is to reduce the
interactions with commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea and resident
killer whale populations.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: July 9, 1996.
Nancy Foster, Ph.D.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 679.24, paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (c)(4) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 679.24 Gear limitations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Longline pot gear. Any person using longline pot gear must
treat any catch of groundfish as a prohibited species, except:
(A) In the Aleutian Islands subarea.
(B) While directed fishing for sablefish in the Bering Sea, except
as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) BSAI. (i) Operators of vessels using gear types other than
hook-and-line, pot, or trawl gear in the BSAI must treat sablefish as a
prohibited species as provided by Sec. 679.21(b).
(ii) Longline pot gear is prohibited in directed fishing for
sablefish from 0001 hrs, A.l.t., on June 1 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., on
June 30.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-17945 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17920 Agriculture Acquisition Regulation; Revision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37032-37034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17920]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
48 CFR Parts 401 Through 453
RIN 0599-AA00
Agriculture Acquisition Regulation; Revision
AGENCY: Procurement and Property Management, Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice invites written comments on a proposed amendment
to the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR). We are revising the
AGAR to reflect changes in acquisition law and regulations since the
AGAR's last major revision in 1988, to update organizational references
throughout the AGAR, and to streamline the AGAR as part of the
President's Regulatory Reform Initiative.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the proposed rule should be sent to
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Procurement and Property Management,
Procurement Policy Division, STOP 9303, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-9303. The Procurement Policy Division has also
posted a copy of the proposed rule on the Internet for review at
WWW.USDA.GOV/DA/PROCURE/AGAR.HTM. Submit written comments to the
Procurement Policy Division at the mailing address listed above,
through the Internet at [email protected] (alternate:
[email protected]), or via fax at (202) 720-8972.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph J. Daragan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Procurement and
Property Management, STOP 9303, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-9303, (202) 720-5729.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
III. Public Comments
I. Background
The AGAR implements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), where
further implementation is needed, and supplements the FAR when coverage
is needed for subject matter not covered by the FAR. The AGAR is being
revised as part of the National Performance Review (NPR) program to
eliminate necessary
[[Page 37033]]
regulations and improve those that remain in force.
As an initial step in the NPR regulatory review initiative, the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified parts of the AGAR which
required updating or streamlining. USDA's review indicated that almost
all parts required revision. Accordingly, USDA has reviewed and made
revisions to substantially all parts of the AGAR. In an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR 7456, February 28, 1996). USDA sought
comments and suggestions from the public concerning what changes should
be made to the AGAR. One comment was received from a USDA field office.
The commenter suggested a change to AGAR part 416; this comment has
been implemented.
The principal effects of the proposed rule are as follows:
(a) References to the Director, Office of Operations, in the AGAR
are revised to refer to the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) to
reflect the reorganization of USDA's Departmental Administration.
(b) To the extent permitted by the FAR, responsibilities have been
delegated to the lowest appropriate organizational level.
(c) Section 401.103-70 is redesignated section 401.370 and revised
to allow promulgation of interim policies and procedures outside the
AGAR, subject to the policies of FAR subpart 1.3.
(d) Section 401.371 is added to establish AGAR Advisories to
communicate guidance on acquisition issues to establish internal
acquisition policies and procedures on an interim basis.
(e) Subpart 403.1 is added to address standards of conduct and
procurement integrity issues.
(f) Subpart 405.3 is added to establish procedures for announcement
of contract awards over $1 million.
(g) Subpart 405.5 is revised to clarify procedures for publication
of paid advertisements.
(h) Subpart 406.2 is added to designate the SPE as the individual
authorized to make the FAR 6.202 determination.
(i) Section 407.305 and the accompanying clauses at 452.207-70 and
452.207-71 are removed since existing FAR coverage is deemed adequate.
(j) Subpart 407.5 is added to implement FAR subpart 7.5, Inherently
Governmental Functions.
(k) 408.7 is added to create an advocacy program for the
acquisition of products and services from the non-profit agencies
employing people who are blind or severely disabled.
(l) Subpart 408.11 is added to establish a preference for recovered
materials in the leasing vehicles.
(m) Section 409.504 and the accompanying clause at 452.209-70 are
removed as superfluous.
(n) Part 410 is redesignated as part 411 and is revised to
eliminate unnecessary text and to authorize the Head of the Contracting
Activity (HCA) to make market acceptance determinations in accordance
with FAR 11.103(a).
(o) Subpart 412.1 is redesignated subpart 411.4 and is amended to
remove prescriptions for clauses at 452.212-70 and 452.212-71. The
corresponding clauses at 452.212-70 and 452.212-71 are also removed.
(p) Part 412 is revised to provide coverage for the acquisition of
commercial items. Subpart 412.3 is added to designate the HCA as the
individual authorized to approve requests to tailor clauses and terms
and conditions for commercial items in accordance with FAR 12.302(c).
(q) Section 413.501 is added to permit issuance of purchase orders
on other than a fixed price basis if authorized by contracting activity
written procedures.
(r) Section 413.505-3 is added to state that use of Standard Form
44 is not authorized within USDA, and section 413.505-70 is removed
since form AD-744, Purchase Order-Invoice-Voucher, is no longer used by
USDA.
(s) Section 414.407-3 is revised to delegate the authority to make
mistake in bid determinations to HCA's.
(t) Section 415.407 is amended to remove prescriptions for
solicitation provisions at 452.215-73, 452.215-74, and 452.215-75, and
the corresponding provisions are removed, to eliminate collection of
unnecessary information from offerors and to provide flexibility to
tailor requests for proposal submissions.
(u) Section 415.612 is amended to remove the requirement that the
HCA must be the formal source selection official for negotiated
contracts over $500,000.
(v) Section 415.902 is revised to authorize use of another Federal
Agency's formalized structured approach for establishing profit or fee
objectives.
(w) Section 416.000 is added to allow the use of contract types
described in FAR part 16 for simplified acquisitions.
(x) Subpart 416.3, section 416.403, and section 416.404-1 are
removed because FAR coverage is deemed adequate.
(y) Section 416.404-2 is amended to remove material adequately
covered by the FAR.
(z) Section 417.204 is added to authorize HCA's to approve option
contracts exceeding 5 years in accordance with FAR 17.204(e).
(aa) Section 417.204 is amended to remove prescriptions for clauses
at 452.217-74, 452.217-75, 452.217-76, 452.217-77, 452.217-78, and
452.217-79, since they have been superseded by FAR clauses 52.217-6,
52.217-7, and 52.217-9. The referenced AGAR clauses are likewise
removed from part 452.
(ab) Subpart 417.4 is removed since USDA does not use the leader
company contracting method.
(ac) Subpart 417.6 is removed since USDA does not have the
requisite statutory authority to enter into management and operating
contracts.
(ad) Section 422.302 is added to provide procedures for review of
liquidated damages assessed under section 104(c) of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act.
(ae) Subpart 422.70 is added to provide guidance for compliance
with E.O. 12989, Economy and Efficiency in Government Procurement
Through Compliance with Certain Immigration and Naturalization Act
Provisions, February 13, 1996.
(af) Part 423 is revised to update the part and to address changes
in environmental and safety law and in the FAR.
(ag) Subpart 423.4 is added to incorporate USDA's Acquisition,
Recycling, and Waste Prevention Program, initiated to comply with 42
U.S.C. 6901, et seq., and with E.O. 12873, Federal Acquisition,
Recycling, and Waste Prevention, October 20, 1993.
(ah) Subpart 430.2 is revised to update procedures for waivers of
the Cost Accounting Standards and of Disclosure Statements.
(ai) Section 432.006 is added to provide procedures for reduction
or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.
(aj) Subparts 432.1 and 432.2 are added to supplement FAR coverage
on financing for commercial and non-commercial items.
(ak) Subpart 432.6 is added to implement the FAR coverage on
contract debts.
(al) Subpart 432.7 is added to address USDA specific funding
issues.
(am) Part 433 is modified to provide an alternate forum for agency
protests.
(an) Part 434 is amended to remove superfluous material and to
identify the official(s) authorized to make the decisions under FAR
34.005-6.
(ao) Section 436.602-1 is amended to remove obsolete selection
criteria.
(ap) Section 437.110 is amended to remove the prescription for the
clause at
[[Page 37034]]
452.237-72, and the corresponding clause, since FAR 52.237-1 may be
used instead of this clause.
(aq) Section 442.704 and the clause at 452.242-70 are removed,
since the FAR provides identical coverage.
(ar) Section 442.1502 is added to delegate to HCA's responsibility
for establishing past performance evaluation procedures and systems as
required by FAR 42.1502 and 42.1503.
(at) Section 449.501 is added to delegate authority to HCA's to
approve the use of special purpose termination clauses pursuant to FAR
49.501.
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
A work plan was prepared for this regulation and submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866. The
proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the proposed rule has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule was reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-611, which requires preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule which is likely to have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The AGAR is
issued to implement or supplement the FAR, and does not materially add
to the impact of the FAR regulations it implements or supplements. USDA
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. However, comments
from small entities concerning parts affected by the proposed rule will
be considered. Such comments must be submitted separately and cite 5
U.S.C. 609 (AGAR Revision) in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping required by the AGAR have
been approved by the OMB. OMB control numbers 0505-0010, 0505-0011,
0505-0013, 0505-0014, 0505-0015, and 0505-0016 apply to the AGAR. No
additional information collection or recordkeeping requirements are
imposed on the public by this proposed rulemaking. Accordingly no OMB
clearance is required by section 350(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq., or OMB's implementing regulation at 5 CFR
Part 1320.
III. Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting views and comments with respect to the proposed AGAR
revision set out in this notice. All written comments will be carefully
assessed and fully considered prior to publication of the final rule.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 401 Through 453
Government contracts, Government procurement.
For the reasons set out in this preamble, the Department proposes
to amend Chapter 4 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Copies of the proposed rule may be obtained from the addresses set
forth above.
W.R. Ashworth,
Director, Procurement and Property Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17920 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XE-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17918 Corn Cyst Nematode
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37018-37019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17918]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 16, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37018]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 96-001-1]
Corn Cyst Nematode
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to remove the regulations that quarantine
certain areas of the United States because of the corn cyst nematode
and that restrict the interstate movement of certain articles, such as
soil, from the quarantined areas. We are proposing this action because
this pest is present in only five counties in two States and appears to
be adequately contained by the two States affected. This action would
relieve restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-001-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-001-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Coanne O'Hern, Assistant
Operations Officer, Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228, (301) 734-8247, or e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Corn cyst nematode (Heterodera zeae) is a cyst-forming nematode
that attacks the roots of host plants such as corn, barley, oats, and
sorghum. The nematode bores into the roots of the plants and feeds on
the plant juices, resulting in poor root development and poor plant
growth and potentially causing severe crop losses. The corn cyst
nematode is spread through the movement of infested soil and equipment
carrying infested soil.
The corn cyst nematode was first detected in the United States in
Kent County, MD, in 1981. Subsequent surveys found infestations in
Harford, Cecil, and Queen Anne's Counties, MD. Between 1981 and 1983,
all 3 counties in Delaware, 13 in Maryland, 11 in New Jersey, 11 in
Pennsylvania, and 2 in Virginia were surveyed for corn cyst nematode.
The results of these surveys were negative. Since 1983, Maryland has
completed surveys in all of its counties, and no additional counties
have been found infested. In 1992, corn cyst nematode was confirmed on
one property in Cumberland County, VA. Delimiting surveys have been
conducted on adjacent properties and all properties leased or farmed by
the owner of the infested property. Surveys were also conducted in corn
fields located along the Appomattox River in Appomattox and Prince
George's Counties, VA. These additional surveys were negative for corn
cyst nematode.
The regulations in 7 CFR 301.90 through 301.90-10 designate areas
that are quarantined because of the presence of corn cyst nematode.
These regulations also restrict the interstate movement of soil and
other articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of corn
cyst nematode.
Studies conducted by the Maryland State Agricultural Experiment
Station (MAES) indicate that corn cyst nematode may not be an economic
pest anywhere in the United States with the possible exception of south
Florida and south Texas. This research has shown that corn cyst
nematode develops best in soil temperatures of 33 to 36 deg.C. At soil
temperatures below 30 deg.C, corn cyst nematode does not reproduce
quickly enough to cause economic damage. Research conducted by MAES
also indicates that corn cyst nematode is easily controlled by crop
rotation. One year of a nonhost crop reduces corn cyst nematode
populations drastically, and recovery may take several years.
The State of Maryland has established a State quarantine that
restricts the movement of possible infested articles from the infested
areas in Cecil, Harford, Kent, and Queen Anne's Counties. The owner of
the infested property in Cumberland County, VA, has entered into a
compliance agreement with the State of Virginia that restricts the
movement from the property of farm machinery and other articles that
may carry infested soil.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the regulations in
Sec. 301.90 through Sec. 301.90-10 are no longer necessary to prevent
the interstate spread of corn cyst nematode. We therefore propose to
remove these regulations.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its
review process required by Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule change is not expected to have an effect on any
entities in the regulated areas. This is because the States of Maryland
and Virginia have restrictions in place to prevent the movement of
potentially infested articles from the infested areas in Cecil,
Harford, Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, MD, and Cumberland County, VA.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) State and
local laws and regulations will not be preempted; (2) no retroactive
effect will be given to this
[[Page 37019]]
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 301--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and
164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Subpart--Corn Cyst Nematode [Removed]
2. Subpart--Corn Cyst Nematode, consisting of Secs. 301.90 and
301.90-1 through 301.90-10, would be removed.
Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17918 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17916 Direct Grant Programs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37184-37194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17916]
[[Page 37183]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 75, et al.
Direct Grant Programs; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 16, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37184]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 75, 206, 231, 235, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 380,
381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 610, 612, 630, 637, 658,
660, 661, 669
RIN 1880-AA74
Direct Grant Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) that govern discretionary
grant programs. These proposed amendments would reduce the need for
specific regulations governing individual programs while ensuring that
proposed projects meet the highest standards of professional
excellence. These proposed amendments would establish new general
selection criteria; allow programs with one or more selection criteria
in program regulations to use the criteria in combination with general
EDGAR criteria and criteria based on statutory provisions; allow
programs to assign weights to criteria; provide for using the new
general selection criteria in considering unsolicited applications; and
remove a number of regulations made unnecessary by the amendments.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New
Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5530. Comments also may be
sent through the Internet to ``EDGAR[email protected]''.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of
Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5530.
Telephone: (202) 219-2005. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In January of 1995 the Department developed its ``Principles for
Regulating'' (Principles) premised on the tenet that the Department
will regulate only when absolutely necessary. The Principles were
developed to ensure that the Department regulates in the most flexible,
most equitable, and least burdensome way possible. The President, on
March 4, 1995, announced a Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
(Initiative) to reform the Federal regulatory system. The Initiative
required all Federal agencies to review their regulations page-by-page.
Regulators were asked to eliminate obsolete regulations, revise
regulations to reward results instead of rewarding process, and
streamline regulations to achieve agency goals in the most efficient
and least intrusive way possible. Since March of 1995, the Department
has been reviewing thoroughly all of its regulations consistent with
the Initiative and the Principles.
Through this process, the Department determined that a number of
program regulations resulted from a program's need for tailored
selection criteria for evaluating grant applications. Most Department
programs require applicants applying for a grant to address numerous
selection criteria that are detailed and specific to the particular
program. In response to the Principles, some programs, in an effort to
eliminate regulations or because the program office determined that
general selection criteria were sufficient, used the general EDGAR
selection criteria in Sec. 75.210. A number of programs, however,
continue to maintain selection criteria designed to evaluate particular
elements of a project to ensure that grants will be given only to high
quality applicants that meet specific program objectives.
The selection criteria in Sec. 75.210 are necessarily very general
and thus, for many programs, inadequate for reviewers to evaluate the
quality of an application. The Secretary proposes these amendments to
establish a menu of improved selection criteria that can be selected as
appropriate to fit the needs of individual programs and eliminate the
need for many program-specific selection criteria. With a more uniform
approach to selection criteria, applicants will be better able to
anticipate the type of information that they may be required to provide
in applying for grants. Moreover, application reviewers should have a
better understanding of the standards on which the Department evaluates
many of its programs. These amendments will create more consistency and
predictability for grant applicants.
The Secretary has already taken several steps toward increased
flexibility and consistency in establishing selection criteria. On
September 14, 1995 the Department published in the Federal Register (60
FR 47808) final regulations that contained the Standards for the
Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried Out by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI Standards). The OERI
Standards established evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating
grant applications and contract proposals for a variety of educational
research, development, and dissemination activities.
The Secretary bases this proposed menu of selection criteria for
Sec. 75.210 on the OERI Standards' evaluation criteria, the current
EDGAR regulations, and other changes needed to cover the broad spectrum
of Department programs that will be affected.
In addition to the OERI Standards, the Department published final
regulations in the Federal Register on December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63873)
that created a new Sec. 75.209 of EDGAR that authorizes the Secretary
to establish selection criteria based on statutory provisions that
apply to the program, without notice and comment on the specific
criteria established.
These proposed amendments to Sec. 75.210 and Sec. 75.209 would
authorize the Secretary to evaluate applications by applying the
general selection criteria (Sec. 75.210), selection criteria based on
the statutory provisions that apply to the program (Sec. 75.209), or
any combination of general selection criteria, criteria based on the
statute, or criteria in program-specific regulations. The amendments
would also allow the Secretary the flexibility to weigh the criteria
according to the needs of each individual program.
Proposed Selection Criteria (Sec. 75.210)
These proposed amendments would establish a menu of selection
criteria. For each competition, the Secretary would select from the
menu one or more criteria that best enable the Department to identify
the highest quality applications consistent with the program purpose,
statutory requirements, and any priorities established. Within each
criterion, the Secretary could further define the criterion by
selecting one or more specific factors.
Two criteria, however, contain factors that would always be
considered if the criterion is selected. Under the ``quality of project
services'' criterion, the Secretary would always evaluate the quality
and sufficiency of strategies for
[[Page 37185]]
ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants
who are members of groups that have been traditionally
underrepresented. Under the ``quality of project personnel'' criterion,
the Secretary would always evaluate the extent to which an applicant
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of
groups that have been traditionally underrepresented. The Department's
consideration of these factors, which first appeared in EDGAR in 1980,
continues to reflect the Department's mission to ensure equal access to
educational opportunities as embodied in the Department of Education
Organization Act and recently reaffirmed by Congress in section 427 of
the General Education Provisions Act.
Under this menu approach, in addition to selecting criteria, the
Secretary would establish the number of points or the weight to be
given to each criterion or factor. The applicable selection criteria
and the assigned points or weights would be announced in the
application package or in a notice published in the Federal Register.
The Secretary would not solicit further public comment on the choice or
weighting of the criteria. The public would have some opportunity to
comment on criteria through the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which
requires an opportunity for public comment on application packages.
The Secretary would select criteria and factors appropriate to the
nature and purposes of the grant program. For example, in the case of a
national research center competition, the Secretary could select the
criterion ``Significance'' (Sec. 75.210(b)(2)) and then further select
factor (C), ``the potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies,'' and factor (D), ``the potential contribution
of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory
and knowledge in the field of study.'' In the case of a competition for
demonstration activities, the Secretary could choose other factors
under the ``Significance'' criterion; for example: (E), ``the potential
for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed
project,'' and (F) ``the extent to which the proposed project involves
the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.'' In the case of a
competition for training activities, the Secretary could select the
criterion ``Need for project'' (Sec. 75.210(b)(1)) and could choose
factor (A), ``the magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed
by the proposed project,'' and factor (D), ``the extent to which
specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or
opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the
proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or
weaknesses.''
The Secretary could determine that, for some competitions, it is
not necessary to further define a criterion by selecting specific
factors. If no factors are chosen, the application reviewer would apply
the criterion in the context of a particular competition. The reviewer
would not have to consider any of the factors.
Advantages and Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments provide an opportunity to improve
significantly the grant application review process. This menu of
selection criteria would provide the Department the flexibility to
choose, from among the criteria and factors established in the
regulations, a set of criteria tailored to a given competition. In
selecting from the menu a set of criteria and factors for a particular
competition, the Secretary would not solicit formal public comment but
expects to draw on input from grantees and program beneficiaries;
feedback from peer reviewers and program evaluators; discussions among
Department employees, grantees, and program beneficiaries; and
meetings, conferences, visits to grantees, and other forms of outreach
and exchange with the relevant communities.
Also, the menu approach would obviate the need to create specific
selection criteria through individual program regulations. Because no
time will be spent developing program-specific regulations, the
Secretary will be able to make grants earlier or give applicants more
time to prepare their applications, or both. The Secretary expects
these amendments to allow the Department to conduct grant competitions
at a time that would best address grantees' planning and implementation
cycles, such as announcing during the spring for programs involving
school districts. The Secretary believes applicants would find that
criteria selected from the menu for specific competitions would provide
them with adequate guidance about review standards, and also with
flexibility to design and propose the projects that they believe best
serve their needs.
The Secretary is particularly interested in comments from potential
grant applicants and intended program beneficiaries on this proposed
approach. The value of this approach lies in expediting the grantmaking
process by reducing separate program regulations and in minimizing
potentially confusing variety in selection criteria on the same
subject. Do applicants or program beneficiaries support this approach?
For example, do applicants and program beneficiaries agree that the
anticipated advantages, such as increased consistency in phrasing of
selection criteria across programs and earlier grant awards, are
valuable? Are there any revisions that would improve this proposed
rule? For example, would it be preferable to limit the number or
percentage of points that could be assigned to any particular criterion
or factor? Are there any costs associated with shifting from using
selection criteria tailored to individual programs to using a flexible
menu of general selection criteria? If yes, what are those costs and
does the benefit of the added flexibility of the proposed approach
justify the costs? Would these proposed amendments have other effects?
Other CFR Parts and Sections Affected by These Amendments
These proposed amendments would also revise Sec. 75.201 to inform
applicants that programs may assign weights to criteria in evaluating
applications and would create a new Sec. 75.211 regarding selection
criteria for unsolicited applications. Also, these amendments would
revise Secs. 75.200 and 75.209 to allow programs with one or more
selection criteria in program regulations to use the criteria in
combination with general EDGAR criteria and criteria based on statutory
provisions.
Only those programs that currently have no program regulations,
have no selection criteria in their program regulations, are new, or
are listed in either chart below would be able to use the menu approach
when the amendments became effective. Before any other programs could
use this approach, the Department would need to amend the program
regulations through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. When
these amendments to part 75 are published as final regulations, the
Department intends in that same document to repeal certain regulations
of programs that will use these selection criteria. The Department
would repeal all of the regulations governing the following programs:
[[Page 37186]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of program 34 CFR part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug-free Schools and Communities--General Provisions...... 231
Drug-free Schools and Communities--Federal Activities
Grants Program............................................ 235
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing
Vocational Rehabilitation Services to Individuals with
Disabilities.............................................. 373
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects Program for
Migratory Agricultural Workers and Seasonal Farmworkers
with Disabilities......................................... 375
Projects for Initiating Recreational Programs for
Individuals with Disabilities............................. 378
School, College, and University Partnerships............... 610
Drug Prevention Programs in Higher Education............... 612
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education........ 630
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department would remove selection criteria from the following
program regulations and make technical amendments to the following
other sections of the regulations to reflect the use of the general
EDGAR selection criteria (program regulations affecting matters other
than selection criteria would remain in effect):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of program 34 CFR sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Educational Programs for Students Whose 206.30 and 206.31.
Families Are Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal
Farmwork--High School Equivalency Program and College
Assistance Migrant Program.
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects............. 369.1, 369.2, 369.21, 369.30,
369.31, 369.32, and 369.42.
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects for American 371.30.
Indians with Disabilities.
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing 376.31.
Transitional Rehabilitation Services to Youth with
Disabilities.
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing 380.10, 380.11, 380.12,
Supported Employment Services to Individual With the 380.13, and 380.14.
Most Severe Disabilities and Technical Assistance
Projects.
Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights........... 381.20 and 381.21.
Rehabilitation Training................................ 385.31, 385.32, and 385.33.
Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term 386.20.
Training.
Experimental and Innovative Training................... 387.30
State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service 388.20.
Training.
Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs........... 389.30.
Rehabilitation Short-Term Training..................... 390.30
Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf 396.30, 396.31, and 396.32.
and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind.
Minority Science Improvement Program................... 637.31 and 637.32.
Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 658.30, 658.31, 658.32,
Language Program. 658.33, and 658.34.
The International Research and Studies Program......... 660.30, 660.31, 660.32,
and 660.33.
Business and International Education Program........... 661.30 and 661.31.
Language Resource Centers Program...................... 669.20, 669.21, and 669.22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12866
1. Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action.
The benefits of these proposed regulations would include improving
the Department's ability to make grants more quickly, eliminating
unnecessary regulations, and creating a single overall approach for
evaluating applications for a number of programs. These proposed
regulations would result in better access to Department regulations
that apply to many programs and would better inform applicants and
application reviewers of project qualities that the Department values
across programs.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those determined by the Secretary as necessary for administering this
program effectively and efficiently. Burdens specifically associated
with information collection requirements, if any, are identified and
explained elsewhere in this preamble under the heading Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the
regulations justify the costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on
whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
The potential costs and benefits of these proposed regulations are
discussed elsewhere in this preamble under the following topic heading:
Proposed Selection Criteria.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example,
[[Page 37187]]
Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria.) (4) Is the description of the
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the regulations? How could this
description be more helpful in making the regulations easier to
understand? (5) What else could the Department do to make the
regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Ave., SW., Room 5121, FB10, Washington, DC
20202-2110.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
These regulations could affect States, State agencies, and
individuals. States, State agencies, and individuals, however, are not
defined as ``small entities'' in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The small entities that could be affected by these regulations are
institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, private
schools, community-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations
receiving Federal funds under a direct grant program. The proposed
regulations, however, would not have a significant economic impact on
these entities, if affected, because the regulations would not impose
excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The proposed regulations would impose minimal requirements
for the Secretary to select grantees.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 75.210 contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the Department of Education has submitted a copy of this section to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Direct Grant Programs--General Selection
Criteria.
These regulations would affect the following types of entities
eligible to apply for grants and cooperative agreements: State, local,
or tribal governments or agencies, businesses or other for-profit
organizations, nonprofit institutions, individuals, and any
combinations of these types of entities. The Department needs and uses
the information to evaluate applications for funding.
The total annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is one hour for one respondent. For programs
that may use the EDGAR selection criteria, the annual public reporting
and recordkeeping burden is estimated to range from 15 hours for each
of approximately 750 applications for a field-initiated research study
to 150 hours for ten or fewer applications for a research center. The
total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for each program using
the EDGAR selection criteria will be determined by the number of
applicants that respond to an application notice and the type of
project to be supported in the particular competition. The actual
burden and total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for each
program will be assigned as an application package is cleared by OMB
under the procedures in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. For
example, if a program using the EDGAR selection criteria had a public
reporting and recordkeeping burden of 90 hours for each respondent and
received 300 applications, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden for that program would be 27,000 hours. For some programs using
the menu approach, the reporting and recordkeeping burden will be less
than under the prior process.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Wendy Taylor, Desk
Officer for the U.S. Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
Some of the programs that would be affected by these regulations
are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order is
to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local
governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
these programs.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 600, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 75
Administrative practice and procedure, Continuation funding,
Education, Grant programs--education, Grants administration,
Incorporation by reference, Performance reports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Unobligated funds.
34 CFR Part 206
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
[[Page 37188]]
Educational study programs, Grants program--education, Migrant labor,
Students, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 231
Drug abuse, Elementary and secondary education, Grants program--
education.
34 CFR Part 235
Drug abuse, Elementary and secondary education, Grants program--
education.
34 CFR Part 369
American Indians, Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 371
American Indians, Disabled, Employment, Grants program--education,
Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 373
Blind, Deaf, Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 375
Disabled, Grants program--education, Migrant labor, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 376
Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational rehabilitation,
Youth.
34 CFR Part 378
Arts and crafts, Disabled, Grants program--education, Hobbies,
Recreation and recreation areas, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 380
Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 381
Advocacy, Disabled, Grants program--education.
34 CFR Part 385
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 386
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 387
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 388
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 390
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 396
Blind, Deaf, Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational
training, Training programs, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 610
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education,
Education of disadvantaged, Education of students with disabilities,
Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 612
Colleges and universities, Drug abuse, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 630
Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 637
Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education, Minority
groups, Science and technology, Women.
34 CFR Part 658
Colleges and universities, Educational study program, Foreign
relations, Grant programs--education, Teachers.
34 CFR Part 660
Colleges and universities, Educational research, Foreign relations,
Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 661
Business and industry, Colleges and universities, Exports, Foreign
relations, Foreign trade, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 669
Colleges and universities, Educational research, Foreign relations,
Grant programs--education, Teachers.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply)
Dated: June 13, 1996.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend parts 75, 206, 231, 235, 369, 371,
373, 375, 376, 378, 380, 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 610,
612, 630, 637, 658, 660, 661, and 669 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 75.200(b)(3)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.200 How applications for new grants and cooperative agreements
are selected for funding; standards for use of cooperative agreements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Unless the regulations for a program state otherwise, the
Secretary uses one of the following to evaluate applications for new
grants under the program:
* * * * *
(iii) Any combination of selection criteria established under
Sec. 75.209, selection criteria in Sec. 75.210, and selection criteria
in the program's regulations.
* * * * *
3. Section 75.201 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.201 How the selection criteria will be used.
(a) If points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria,
the Secretary informs applicants in the application package or a notice
published in the Federal Register of--
(1) The total possible score for all of the criteria for a program;
and
(2) The assigned weight or the maximum possible score for each
criterion or factor under that criterion.
(b) If no points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria
and selected factors, the Secretary evaluates each criterion equally
and, within each criterion, each factor equally.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
Sec. 75.209 [Amended]
4. Section 75.209(a) is amended by removing ``If a discretionary
grant program does not have implementing regulations or has
implementing regulations that do not include selection criteria,'' and
capitalizing the word ``the''.
5. Section 75.210 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria.
(a) In addition to the selection criteria established in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary may use criteria established under
Sec. 75.209 or selection criteria in program specific regulations.
(b) In determining the selection criteria to be used in each grant
[[Page 37189]]
competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following
criteria and may select from among the specific factors listed under
each criterion:
(1) Need for project. (i) The Secretary considers the need for the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the need for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the
proposed project.
(B) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or
the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(C) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services
or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational
failure.
(D) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving
or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals.
(E) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses.
(F) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel
for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated.
(2) Significance. (i) The Secretary considers the significance of
the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The national significance of the proposed project.
(B) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the
proposed project.
(C) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(D) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of rehabilitation problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(E) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system
change or improvement.
(F) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the
field of study.
(G) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of
the proposed project.
(H) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield
findings that may be utilized by other appropriate agencies and
organizations.
(I) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the
needs of the target population.
(J) The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on,
or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(K) The likely utility of the products (such as information,
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a
variety of other settings.
(L) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to
be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information
or strategies.
(M) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings.
(N) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement.
(O) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
employment and independent living services.
(P) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(3) Quality of the project design. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the design of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(B) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs.
(C) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(D) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a
coherent, sustained program of research and development in the field,
including, as appropriate, a substantial addition to an ongoing line of
inquiry.
(E) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a
coherent, sustained program of training in the field.
(F) The extent to which the proposed project is based upon a
specific research design, and the quality and appropriateness of that
design, including the scientific rigor of the studies involved.
(G) The extent to which the proposed research design includes a
thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for research activities, and the use of appropriate
theoretical and methodological tools, including those of a variety of
disciplines, where appropriate.
(H) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate
methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project
objectives.
(I) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures
for documenting project activities and results.
(J) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including information
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the
project.
(K) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include
adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of
products.
(L) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of
Federal financial assistance.
(M) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(N) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.
(O) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the
competition.
(P) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated
with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community,
State, and Federal resources.
(Q) The extent to which the proposed project will establish
linkages with other appropriate agencies and
[[Page 37190]]
organizations providing services to the target population.
(R) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support
rigorous academic standards for students.
(S) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental
involvement.
(T) The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer
involvement.
(U) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(V) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed
project.
(W) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project
participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
(4) Quality of project services. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(iii) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(A) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or
beneficiaries of those services.
(B) The extent to which entities that are to be served by the
proposed technical assistance project demonstrate support for the
project.
(C) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice.
(D) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the
proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(E) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(F) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to alleviate
the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of
the proposed project.
(G) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed
project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as
measured against rigorous academic standards.
(H) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed
project will lead to improvements in the skills necessary to gain
employment or build capacity for independent living.
(I) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for
maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
(J) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be
provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient
strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the
leveraging of non-project resources.
(K) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project are focused on those with greatest needs.
(L) The quality of plans for providing an opportunity for
participation in the proposed project of students enrolled in private
schools.
(5) Quality of project personnel. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(iii) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(A) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator.
(B) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of key project personnel.
(C) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of project consultants or subcontractors.
(6) Adequacy of resources. (i) The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(B) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(C) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project.
(D) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(E) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and
benefits.
(F) The potential for continued support of the project after
Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated
commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
(G) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or
organization at the end of Federal funding.
(7) Quality of the management plan. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following
factors:
(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(B) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(C) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(D) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(E) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
(8) Quality of the project evaluation. (i) The Secretary considers
the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following factors:
[[Page 37191]]
(A) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(B) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate
to the context within which the project operates.
(C) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(D) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(E) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
timely guidance for quality assurance.
(F) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(G) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
6. A new section 75.211 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.211 Selection criteria for unsolicited applications.
(a) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34
CFR 75.222(a)(2)(ii), the Secretary uses the selection criteria and
factors, if any, used for the competition under which the application
could have been funded.
(b) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34
CFR 75.222(a)(2)(iii), the Secretary selects from among the criteria in
75.210(b), and may select from among the specific factors listed under
each criterion, the criteria that are most appropriate to evaluate the
activities proposed in the application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
PART 206--SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES
ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARMWORK--HIGH SCHOOL
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM
7. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.
8. Section 206.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 206.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(a) and (e))
Sec. 206.31 [Removed]
9. Section 206.31 is removed.
PART 231--DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES--GENERAL PROVISIONS
[REMOVED]
10. Part 231 is removed.
PART 235--DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES--FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
GRANTS PROGRAM [REMOVED]
11. Part 235 is removed.
PART 369--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS
12. The authority citation for part 369 is removed to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 732, 750, 777(a)(1), 777b, 777f and
795g, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 369.1 [Amended]
13. Section 369.1 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(4), by removing in paragraph (b)(3) ``(34 CFR part 373)'', in
paragraph (b)(5) ``(34 CFR part 375)'', and in paragraph (b)(7) ``(34
CFR part 378)'', and by redesignating paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5),
(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8) as paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4),
(b)(5), and (b)(6) respectively.
Sec. 369.2 [Amended]
14. Section 369.2 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) and (d) and
by redesignating paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs
(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) respectively.
Sec. 369.21 [Amended]
15. Section 369.21 is amended by removing ``under 34 CFR parts 372,
373, 374, 375, 376, 378, or 379'', and adding, in its place, ``covered
by this part''.
16. Section 369.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 369.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR Part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
Sec. 369.31 [Removed]
17. Section 369.31 is removed.
Sec. 369.32 [Amended]
18. Section 369.32 is amended by removing ``listed in Sec. 369.31
and 34 CFR parts 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, and 379'', in the
introductory text and adding, in its place, ``used in accordance with
the procedures in 34 CFR part 75''.
Sec. 369.42 [Amended]
19. Section 369.42 paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``34 CFR
parts 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, or 379'', and adding, in its
place, ``a program covered by this part''.
PART 371--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS FOR AMERICAN
INDIANS WITH DISABILITIES
20. The authority citation for part 371 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 750, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 371.30 [Removed]
21. Section 371.30 is removed.
PART 373--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
[REMOVED]
22. Part 373 is removed.
PART 375--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS PROGRAM FOR
MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS WITH
DISABILITIES [REMOVED]
23. Part 375 is removed.
PART 376--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
TRANSITIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES TO YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
24. The authority citation for part 376 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(b), unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 376.31 [Removed]
25. Section 376.31 is removed.
PART 378--PROJECTS FOR INITIATING RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES [REMOVED]
26. Part 378 is removed.
[[Page 37192]]
PART 380--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH THE MOST SEVERE
DISABILITIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS
27. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 777a(c), unless otherwise noted.
28. Section 380.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 380.10 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR Part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(c))
Secs. 380.11, 380.12, and 380.13 [Removed]
29. Sections 380.11, 380.12, and 380.13 are removed.
30. Section 380.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 380.14 What other factors does the Secretary consider in
reviewing an application?
In addition to the selection criteria used in accordance with the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75, the Secretary, in making awards under
this part, considers the geographical distribution of projects in each
program category throughout the country.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(a)(1) and 777a(c))
PART 381--PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
31. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794e, unless otherwise noted.
32. Section 381.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 381.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
In any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated for the PAIR
program is less than $5,500,000, the Secretary evaluates applications
under the procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 794e (b) and (f))
Sec. 380.21 [Removed]
33. Section 381.21 is removed.
PART 385--REHABILITATION TRAINING
34. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 772, and 774, unless otherwise
noted.
35. Section 385.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 385.31 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates applications under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(b) The Secretary evaluates each application using selection
criteria identified in parts 386, 387, 388, 389 and 390, as
appropriate.
(c) In addition to the selection criteria described in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary evaluates each application using-
(1) Selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210;
(2) Selection criteria established under 34 CFR 75.209; or
(3) A combination of selection criteria established under 34 CFR
75.209 and selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
Sec. 385.32 [Removed]
36. Section 385.32 is removed.
Sec. 385.33 [Amended]
37. Section 385.33 is revised by removing the number ``385.32'' in
the introductory text and adding in its place the number ``75.210''.
PART 386--REHABILITATION TRAINING: REHABILITATION LONG-TERM
TRAINING
38. The authority citation for part 386 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
39. Section 386.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 386.20 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criteria to evaluate an application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the project
can be expected either--
(i) To increase the supply of trained personnel available to State
and other public or nonprofit agencies involved in the rehabilitation
of individuals with physical or mental disabilities through degree or
certificate granting programs; or
(ii) To improve the skills and quality of professional personnel in
the rehabilitation field in which the training is to be provided
through the granting of a degree or certificate.
(b) Nature and scope of curriculum. (1) The Secretary reviews each
application for information that demonstrates the adequacy of the
proposed curriculum.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows--
(i) The scope and nature of the coursework reflect content that can
be expected to enable the achievement of the established project
objectives;
(ii) The curriculum and teaching methods provide for an integration
of theory and practice relevant to the educational objectives of the
program;
(iii) There is evidence of educationally focused practical and
other field experiences in settings that ensure student involvement in
the provision of vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, or
independent living rehabilitation services to individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with severe disabilities;
(iv) The coursework includes student exposure to vocational
rehabilitation, supported employment, or independent living
rehabilitation processes, concepts, programs, and services; and
(v) If applicable, there is evidence of current professional
accreditation by the designated accrediting agency in the professional
field in which grant support is being requested.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 771a)
PART 387--EXPERIMENTAL AND INNOVATIVE TRAINING
40. The authority citation for part 387 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
41. Section 387.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 387.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criteria to evaluate an application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the project
can be expected either--
(i) To increase the supply of trained personnel available to public
and private agencies involved in the
[[Page 37193]]
rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities; or
(ii) To maintain and improve the skills and quality of
rehabilitation workers.
(b) Nature and scope of curriculum. (1) The Secretary reviews each
application for information that demonstrates the adequacy and scope of
the proposed curriculum.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that--
(i) The scope and nature of the training content can be expected to
enable the achievement of the established project objectives of the
training project;
(ii) The curriculum and teaching methods provide for an integration
of theory and practice relevant to the educational objectives of the
program;
(iii) There is evidence of educationally focused practicum or other
field experiences in settings that assure student involvement in the
provision of vocational rehabilitation or independent living
rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, especially
individuals with severe disabilities; and
(iv) The didactic coursework includes student exposure to
vocational rehabilitation or independent living rehabilitation
processes, concepts, programs, and services.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774)
PART 388--STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION UNIT IN-SERVICE TRAINING
42. The authority citation for Part 388 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
43. Section 388.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 388.20 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the selection criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the
Secretary uses the following additional selection criteria to evaluate
an application:
(a) Evidence of need. (1) The Secretary reviews each application
for information that shows that the need for the in-service training
has been adequately justified.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows--
(i) How the proposed project relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program and can be expected to improve
the competence of all State vocational rehabilitation personnel in
providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with
disabilities that will result in employment outcomes or otherwise
contribute to more effective management of the State unit program;
(ii) That the State unit in-service training plan responds to needs
identified in their training needs assessment and the proposed training
relates to the unit's State plan, particularly the requirements in
section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act for each designated State
unit to develop a comprehensive system of personnel development;
(iii) The need for training methods and materials that will be
useful in determining how in-service training improves the impact and
effectiveness of services to individuals with disabilities assisted
under the Rehabilitation Act to ensure employment outcomes; and
(iv) The State has conducted a needs assessment of the in-service
training needs for all of the State unit employees.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 770, and 771a)
PART 389--REHABILITATION CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS
44. The authority citation for Part 389 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
45. Section 389.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 389.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service programs.
(2) The Secretary reviews each application for information that
shows that the proposed project includes an assessment of the potential
of existing programs within the geographical area (including State
vocational rehabilitation unit in-service training) to meet the needs
for which support is sought.
(3) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the
proposed project can be expected to improve the competence of
professional and other personnel in the rehabilitation agencies serving
individuals with severe disabilities.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
PART 390--REHABILITATION SHORT-TERM TRAINING
46. The authority citation for Part 390 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
47. Section 390.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 390.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service programs.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the
proposed project can be expected to improve the skills and competence
of--
(i) Personnel engaged in the administration or delivery of
rehabilitation services; and
(ii) Others with an interest in the delivery of rehabilitation
services.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774)
PART 396--TRAINING OF INTERPRETERS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF-BLIND
48. The authority citation for Part 396 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f), unless otherwise noted.
49. Section 396.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 396.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates applications under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(b) The Secretary evaluates each application using selection
criteria in Sec. 396.31.
(c) In addition to the selection criteria described in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary evaluates each application using--
(1) Selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210;
(2) Selection criteria established under 34 CFR 75.209; or
(3) A combination of selection criteria established under 34 CFR
75.209 and selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f))
50. Section 396.31 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 37194]]
Sec. 396.31 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 396.30(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Demonstrated relationships with service providers and
consumers. The Secretary reviews each application to determine the
extent to which--
(1) The proposed interpreter training project was developed in
consultation with service providers;
(2) The training is appropriate to the needs of both individuals
who are deaf and individuals who are deaf-blind and to the needs of
public and private agencies that provide services to either individuals
who are deaf or individuals who are deaf-blind in the geographical area
to be served by the training project;
(3) There is a working relationship between the interpreter
training project and service providers; and
(4) There are opportunities for individuals who are deaf and
individuals who are deaf-blind to be involved in the training project.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f))
Sec. 396.32 [Amended]
51. Section 396.32 is amended by adding after the number ``396.31''
the cross-reference ``and 34 CFR 75.210''.
PART 610--SCHOOL, COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS [REMOVED]
52. Part 610 is removed.
PART 612--DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION [REMOVED]
53. Part 612 is removed.
PART 630--FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
[REMOVED]
54. Part 630 is removed.
PART 637--MINORITY SCIENCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
55. The authority citation for part 637 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1135b-1135b-3, 1135d-1135d-3, 1135d-5, and
1135d-6, unless otherwise noted.
56. Section 637.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 637.31 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in
34 CFR Part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR Part 75.
(b) The Secretary gives priority to applicants that have not
previously received funding from the program and to previous grantees
with a proven record of success, as well as to applications that
contribute to achieving balance among funded projects with respect to--
(1) Geographic region;
(2) Academic discipline; and
(3) Project type.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1135b-1 and 1135d-3)
Sec. 637.32 [Removed]
57. Section 637.32 is removed.
PART 658--UNDERGRADUATE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
PROGRAM
58. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124, unless otherwise noted.
59. Section 658.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 658.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124)
Secs. 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33 [Removed]
60. Sections 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33 are removed.
Sec. 658.34 [Amended]
61. Section 658.34 is amended by removing the comma after the word
``in'' and by removing the words and numbers ``as appropriate
Secs. 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33,'' and adding in their place the
number ``Sec. 75.210''.
PART 660--THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDIES PROGRAM
62. The authority citation for Part 660 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1125, unless otherwise noted.
63. Section 660.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1125)
Secs. 660.31, 660.32, and 660.33 [Removed]
64. Sections 660.31, 660.32 and 660.33 are removed.
PART 661--BUSINESS AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
65. The authority citation for part 661 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130-1130b, unless otherwise noted.
66. Section 661.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 661.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130a)
Sec. 661.31 [Removed]
67. Section 661.31 is removed.
PART 669--LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM
68. The authority citation for part 669 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123, unless otherwise noted.
69. Section 669.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 669.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using the selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)
Sec. 669.21 [Removed]
70. Section 669.21 is removed.
71. Section 669.22 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 669.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
* * * * *
(c) If the Secretary establishes one or more priorities under this
section, the Secretary may award an applicant up to an additional 20
possible points for meeting the priority.
[FR Doc. 96-17916 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17836 VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37024-37030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17836]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900-AH89
VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program Clarification of
Per Diem Eligibility
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: It is proposed to amend the regulations implementing the VA
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program concerning per diem
assistance by: Establishing more detailed criteria for determining
which entities are eligible for obtaining per diem assistance;
establishing a priority for funding eligible entities; clarifying the
requirements for continued receipt of per diem payments; and clarifying
the maximum amount payable for per diem assistance. The proposal is
designed to ensure that the appropriate entities receive the
appropriate amount of per diem assistance under fair and objective
procedures. This document also proposes to obtain approval of
collection of information provisions concerning applicants for grants
and per diem.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written comments to: Director, Office
of Regulations Management (02D), Room 1154, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should
indicate that they are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AH89.'' All
written comments will be available for public inspection at the above
address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except
holidays).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Casey, VA Homeless Providers
Grant and Per Diem Program, Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences
Service (111C1E), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20420; (202) 273-8442. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is proposed to amend the regulations
implementing VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program (38 CFR
part 17.700) concerning per diem assistance by: (1) Establishing more
detailed criteria for determining which entities are eligible for
obtaining per diem assistance; (2) establishing a priority for funding
eligible entities; (3) clarifying the requirements for continued
receipt of per diem payments; and (4) clarifying the maximum amount
payable for per diem assistance. These regulations were established
pursuant to Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Services Act of 1992 (Pub.
L. 102-590, as amended by Pub. L. 104-110). The regulations set forth
provisions to assist public or non-profit private entities in
establishing new programs to furnish supportive services and supportive
housing for homeless veterans through grants. The regulations also
provide for per diem payments, or in-kind assistance in lieu of per
diem payments, to entities that are receiving grants or to entities
eligible to receive a grant that established supportive services or a
supportive housing program for homeless veterans after November 10,
1992.
Some homeless veterans service providers have informed us they
understood the regulations allowed only grant recipients to apply for
per diem assistance. However, neither the Act nor the regulations limit
per diem assistance to grant recipients. Nevertheless, the Act does
limit per diem assistance to entities that meet basic criteria
applicable to grant recipients. ``Eligible entity'' under the Act means
a public or nonprofit private entity that: Has the capacity to
effectively administer a grant under the Act; demonstrates that
adequate financial support will be available to carry out the project
for which the grant is sought; and agrees to meet the applicable
criteria and requirements of the grant program. Grant program criteria
and requirements applicable to the receipt of per diem include:
Targeting the homeless veteran population; coordinating with the
community; providing the needed services; and establishing a project
plan that details the goals that will be used in evaluating
participants' progress as well as program successes with increasing
veterans' residential stability, skill and/or income level, and self
determination. It is proposed to subject per diem applicants to these
criteria. It appears this would ensure that the entities awarded per
diem assistance
[[Page 37025]]
would have the necessary standards of quality required to comply with
the Act. Further, it is proposed that per diem applicants be required
to score a minimum of 500 points on the per diem portions of the Grant/
Per Diem application. This minimum eligibility score is proportional to
the minimum 600 points required for grant eligibility. The remaining
criteria and requirements of the grant program pertain to construction,
property acquisition, leveraging resources, vehicle acquisition, etc.,
which are not applicable to per diem.
Additionally, the rule would clarify that non-grant recipients'
programs that are not scored under per diem criteria, and grant
recipients' programs that are not established as a result of grant
funding, would not receive per diem payments.
It is also proposed to establish a priority for funding and
criteria for ranking per diem applicants. Under the proposal, per diem
assistance would first be awarded to supportive housing or supportive
service center grant recipients that request per diem and that receive
a sufficient ranking based on a cumulative score on portions of the
Grant/Per Diem application pertaining to per diem assistance. It is
proposed that if funding is still available, a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) would be published in the Federal Register and
applications would be accepted from non-grant recipients. Also, the
proposal provides that per diem would be awarded to those non-grant
recipients who are deemed eligible entities and who receive a
sufficient ranking based on the application. It appears that this
method of prioritizing would help ensure success of the entities
receiving grant funds for supportive housing and supportive service
centers while still providing for consideration of non-grant
recipients. In evaluating grant recipients and non-grant recipients,
scores would be ranked from highest to lowest and funds would be
allocated on the basis of rank from highest to lowest until funds are
expended. Under this proposal those non-grant recipient entities that
have already submitted a request for recognition of eligibility, prior
to the issuance of this amendment, would need not submit a second
request but would be expected to follow the proposed requirements for
application. Those grant recipients that have received a grant prior to
this amendment and have not received per diem payments, would be asked
to submit a request for recognition of eligibility to initiate scoring
of the per diem relevant portions of their grant application.
It is also proposed to clarify the requirements for continued
receipt of per diem payments. To help ensure the quality of per diem
recipients' programs, VA would require recipients to maintain their
programs so that they would score the minimum number of points required
on per diem relevant sections of the Grant/Per Diem application. Under
the proposal, VA would ensure compliance by conducting inspections and
would provide an opportunity to challenge a VA decision to terminate
per diem payments for a recipient's failure to comply with requirements
prior to the actual termination of payments.
The legislative history of the Act indicates that it was Congress'
intent that per diem rates for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per
Diem Program not be more generous than per diem rates under the State
Home Program to avoid creating an incentive for states to participate
in the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program instead of
expanding and/or continuing participation in the State Home Program.
Further, the Act limits per diem payments to one half the recipients'
cost of providing services supported by such payments. Therefore, to
better reflect the intent of Congress, it is proposed to clarify in the
rule that the maximum per diem rate for supportive housing under the
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program will be the prevailing
State Home per diem rate for domiciliary care or one-half the cost of
providing this service, whichever is less. Additionally, it is proposed
to revise the rule so it is clear that this ``maximum'' amount is in
fact a fixed rate and VA will not pay less than this rate unless
prevented from doing so by budget constraints.
Non-substantive changes also are proposed for purposes of
organization and clarity.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3504(h)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Director, Office of
Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420.
This collection of information included in 38 CFR 17.710 through
17.714 and Secs. 17.717 through 17.719 concerns an application for
public or nonprofit private entities to establish new programs to
furnish supportive services and supportive housing for homeless
veterans through grants of up to 65 percent of the cost to construct,
expand, remodel or alter existing buildings; to acquire facilities; or
to procure vans to provide transportation for and support outreach to
homeless veterans and to provide per diem payments for those veterans
determined eligible for such payments by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Provisions concerning per diem are explained above in this
preamble. Provisions concerning grants are already set forth in 38 CFR
and are restated in the regulatory text portion of this document.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collection(s) of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Department, including whether the information will have
practical utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and;
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the proposed
collections of information contained in this document between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Title: Application for VA homeless providers grant and per diem
program.
Summary of collection of information: The Department requires the
applicant for grants and/or per diem to submit information that assists
in the
[[Page 37026]]
determination of funds to be awarded. The requested information
addresses the ability of the organization to effectively administer a
program and requires the organization to demonstrate the quality of the
project, how the homeless veteran will be targeted, the need for the
proposed program, the coordination with other agencies, and the
project's cost effectiveness.
Description of the need for information and proposed use of
information: The Department is required to assess organizations'
projects and fund those that most appropriately meet the needs of
homeless veterans as determined by the rules of the program. This
collection of information will be used to rank various projects and
award those most likely to meet intent of the statute.
Description of likely respondents: public or non-profit private
entities providing supportive services and supportive housing for
homeless veterans.
Estimated total annual reporting burden for grants: 5,000 hours.
Estimated total annual reporting burden for per diem: 2,500 hours.
The estimated annual burden per respondent for grants: 50 hours.
The estimated annual burden per respondent for per diem: 50 hours.
Estimate number of respondents for grants: 100.
Estimate number of respondents for per diem: 50.
Estimate annual frequency of responses for grants: 1
Estimate annual frequency of responses for per diem: 1
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that the provisions of the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602. In all likelihood, only
similar entities that are small entities would participate in the
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirement of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is
64.024.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations,
Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans,
Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records,
Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting
and record-keeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel
and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Approved: June 26, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 17 is
proposed to be amended as set forth below:
PART 17--MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.700 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 17.700, paragraph (a) is amended by removing
``17.715(a)'' and adding, in its place, ``17.716''.
3. Sections 17.710 through 17.719 are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 17.710 Application requirements.
(a) General. Applications for grants must be submitted in the form
prescribed by VA in the application package, must meet the requirements
of this part, and must be submitted within the time period established
by VA in the notice of fund availability under Sec. 17.708 of this
part. The application packet includes exhibits to be prepared and
submitted as part of the application process, including:
(1) Justification for the project by addressing items listed in
Sec. 17.711(c) of this part;
(2) Site description, design, and cost estimates;
(3) Documentation on eligibility to receive assistance under this
part;
(4) Documentation on matching funds committed to the projects;
(5) Documentation on operating budget and cost sharing;
(6) Documentation on supportive services committed to the project;
(7) Documentation on site control and appropriate zoning, and on
the boundaries of the area or community proposed to be served;
(8) Applicants who are States must submit any comments or
recommendations by appropriate State (and area wide) clearinghouses
pursuant to E.O. 12372 (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197); and
(9) Reasonable assurances with respect to receipt of assistance
under this part that:
(i) The project will be used principally to furnish to veterans the
level of care for which such application is made; that not more than 25
percent of participants at any one time will be non-veterans; and that
such services will meet standards prescribed by VA;
(ii) Title to such site or van will vest solely in the applicant;
(iii) Each recipient will keep those records and submit those
reports as VA may reasonably require, within the time frames required;
and give VA, upon demand, access to the records upon which such
information is based; and
(iv) Adequate financial support will be available for the purchase
of the van or completion of the project, and for its maintenance,
repair and operation.
(b) Pre-award expenditures. Costs incurred for a project after the
date the Department of Veterans Affairs notifies an applicant that the
project is feasible for VA participation are allowable costs if the
application is approved and the grant is awarded. These pre-award
expenditures include architectural and engineering fees. Such
notification occurs when VA requests information for the second
submission portion of the application.
Sec. 17.711 Rating criteria for applications.
(a) General. Applications will be assigned a rating score and
placed in ranked order, based upon the criteria listed in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Threshold review. Applicants will undergo a threshold review
prior to rating and ranking, to ensure they meet the following:
(1) Form, time, and adequacy. Applications must be filed in the
form prescribed by VA in the application process and within the time
established in the NOFA.
(2) Application eligibility. The applicant and project sponsor, if
relevant, must be eligible to apply for the specific program.
(3) Eligible population to be served. The population proposed to be
served must be homeless veterans and meet other eligibility
requirements of the specific program.
(4) Eligible activities. The activities for which assistance is
requested must be eligible for funding under this part (e.g., new
programs or new components of existing programs).
(5) Outstanding audit findings. No organization that receives
assistance may have an outstanding obligation to VA that is in arrears
or for which a payment schedule has not been agreed to, or whose
response to an audit is overdue or unsatisfactory.
(c) Rating and ranking of first submission. Applicants that pass
the threshold review will then be rated using the eight selection
criteria listed
[[Page 37027]]
in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section. Applicants must
receive at least 600 points (out of a possible 1,200) and must receive
points under criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Applicants that are applying
as an innovative supportive housing project must achieve points under
the innovative quality of the proposal criterion.
(1) Quality of the project--300 points.
(2) Targeting to persons on streets and in shelters--150 points.
(3) Ability of the applicant to develop and operate a project--200
points.
(4) Need for the type of project proposed in the area to be
served--150 points.
(5) Innovative quality of the proposal--50 points.
(6) Leveraging--50 points.
(7) Cost effectiveness--100 points.
(8) Coordination with other programs--200 points.
(d) Selection criteria--(1) Quality of the project. VA will award
up to 300 points based on the extent to which the application presents
a clear, well-conceived and thorough plan for assisting homeless
veterans achieve residential stability, increased skills and/or income,
and more influence over decisions that affect their lives. Higher
ratings will be assigned to those applications that clearly describe:
(i) How program participants will achieve residential stability,
including how available supportive services will help participants
reach this goal;
(ii) How program participants will increase their skill level and/
or income, including how available supportive services will help
participants reach this goal;
(iii) How program participants will be involved in making project
decisions that affect their lives, including how they will be involved
in selecting supportive services, establishing individuals goals and
developing plans to achieve these goals so that they achieve greater
self determination;
(iv) How permanent affordable housing will be identified and made
available to participants upon leaving the transitional housing, and
how participants will be provided necessary follow-up services to help
them achieve stability in the permanent housing;
(v) How the service needs of participants will be assessed on an
ongoing basis;
(vi) How the proposed housing, if any, will be managed and
operated;
(vii) How participants will be assisted in assimilating into the
community through access to neighborhood facilities, activities and
services;
(viii) How and when the progress of participants toward meeting
their individuals goals will be monitored and evaluated;
(ix) How and when the effectiveness of the overall project in
achieving its goals will be evaluated and how program modifications
will be made based on those evaluations; and
(x) How the proposed project will be implemented in a timely
fashion.
(2) Targeting to persons on streets and in shelters. VA will award
up to 150 points based on:
(i) The extent to which the project will serve homeless veterans
living in places not ordinarily meant for human habitation (e.g.,
streets, parks, abandoned buildings, automobiles, under bridges, in
transportation facilities) and those who reside in emergency shelters;
and
(ii) The likelihood that proposed plans for outreach and selection
of participants will result in these populations being served.
(3) Ability of applicant to develop and operate a project. VA will
award up to 200 points based on the extent to which those who will be
involved in carrying out the project have experience in activities
similar to those proposed in the application. Rating will be assigned
based on the extent to which the application demonstrates experience in
the following areas:
(i) Engaging the participation of homeless veterans living in
places not ordinarily meant for human habitation and in emergency
shelters;
(ii) Assessing the housing and relevant supportive service needs of
homeless veterans;
(iii) Accessing housing and relevant supportive service resources;
(iv) If applicable, contracting for and/or overseeing the
rehabilitation or construction of housing;
(v) If applicable, administering a rental assistance program;
(vi) Providing supportive services for homeless veterans;
(vii) Monitoring and evaluating the progress of persons toward
meeting their individual goals; and
(viii) Evaluating the overall effectiveness of a program and using
evaluation results to make program improvements.
(4) Need. VA will award up to 150 points based on the applicant's
demonstrated understanding of the needs of the specific homeless
veteran population proposed to be served in the specified area or
community. Ratings will be made based on the extent to which applicants
demonstrate:
(i) Substantial unmet needs, particularly among the target
population who are living in places not ordinarily meant for human
habitation (e.g., streets) and in emergency shelters, based on reliable
data from surveys of homeless populations, a Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS), or other reports or data gathering
mechanisms that directly support claims made;
(ii) An understanding of the homeless population to be served and
its unmet housing and supportive service needs.
(5) Innovative quality of the proposal. Applicants who have
indicated in their application that they are applying under the
innovative supportive housing component must receive points under this
criteria to be eligible for award. VA will award up to 50 points based
on the innovative quality of the proposal, when compared to other
applications and projects; in terms of:
(i) Helping homeless veterans or homeless veterans with
disabilities to be served to reach residential stability, increase
their skill level and/or income and increase the influence they have
over decisions that affect their lives; and
(ii) A clear link between the innovation(s) and its proposed
effect(s); and
(iii) Its ability to be used as a model for other projects.
(6) Leveraging. VA will award up to 50 points based on the extent
to which resources from other public and private sources, including
cash and the value of third party contributions, have been committed to
support the project at the time of application. Any applicant who
wishes to receive points under this criterion must submit documentation
of leveraged resources which meets the requirements stated in the
application. This is optional; applicants who cannot, or choose not to,
provide firm documentation of resources as part of the application will
forego any points for leveraging.
(7) Cost effectiveness. VA will award up to 100 points for cost
effectiveness. Projects will be rated based on the cost and number of
new supportive housing beds made available or the cost, amount and
types of supportive services made available, when compared to other
transitional housing and supportive services projects, and when
adjusted for high cost areas. Cost effectiveness may include using
excess government properties (local, State, Federal), as well as
demonstrating site control at the time of application.
(8) Coordination with other programs. VA will award up to 200
points based on the extent to which applicants demonstrate that they
have coordinated with Federal, State, local, private and other entities
serving homeless persons in the planning and operation of the project.
Such entities may include
[[Page 37028]]
shelter, transitional housing, health care, or social service
providers; providers funded through Federal initiatives; local planning
coalitions or provider associations; or other programs relevant to the
local community. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they have
coordinated with the VA medical care facility of jurisdiction and VA
Regional Offices of jurisdiction in their area. Higher points will be
given to those applicants that can demonstrate that:
(i) They are part of an ongoing community-wide planning process
which is designed to share information on available resources and
reduce duplication among programs that serve homeless veterans;
(ii) They have consulted directly with other providers regarding
coordination of services for project participants. VA will award up to
50 points of the 200 points for this criterion based on the extent to
which commitments to provide supportive services are available at the
time of application. Applicants who wish to receive points under this
optional criterion must submit documentation of supportive service
resources.
Sec. 17.712 Selecting applications.
(a) General. The highest-ranked applications will be conditionally
selected in accordance with their ranked order, as determined under
Sec. 17.711 of this part. Each will be requested, as necessary, to
provide additional project information, as described in Sec. 17.713 of
this part, as a prerequisite to a grant from VA.
(b) Ties between applicants. In the event of a tie between
applicants, VA will use the selection criterion in Sec. 17.711(d)(4) of
this part, need for the type of project proposed in the area to be
served, to determine which application should be selected for potential
funding.
(c) Procedural error. If an application would have been selected
but for a procedural error committed by VA, VA will select that
application for potential funding when sufficient funds become
available if there is no material change in the information that
resulted in its selection. A new application will not be required for
this purpose.
Sec. 17.713 Obtaining additional information and awarding grants.
(a) Additional information. Applicants who have been conditionally
selected will be requested by VA to submit additional project
information, as described in the second submission of the application,
which may include:
(1) Documentation to show that the project is feasible.
(2) Documentation showing the sources of funding for the project
and firm financing commitments for the march described in Sec. 17.706.
(3) Documentation showing site control, as described in
Sec. 17.731.
(4) Information necessary for VA to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321, et seq.), as described in Sec. 17.714.
(5) A site survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. A
description of the site shall be submitted noting the general
characteristics of the site. This should include soil reports and
specifications, easements, main roadway approaches, surrounding land
uses, availability of electricity, water and sewer lines, and
orientation. The description should also include a map locating the
existing and/or new buildings, major roads, and public services in the
geographic area. Additional site plans should show all site work
including property lines, existing and new topography, building
locations, utility data, and proposed grades, roads, parking areas,
walks, landscaping, and site amenities.
(6) Design development (35 percent) drawings.
(i) The applicant shall provide to VA one set of sepias and two
sets of prints, rolled individually per set, to expedite the review
process. The drawing shall indicate the designation of all spaces, size
of the areas and rooms and indicate in outline the fixed and moveable
equipment and furniture. The drawings shall be drawn at \1/8\'' or \1/
4\'' scale. Bedroom and toilet layouts, showing clearances and Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards requirements, should be shown at \1/
4\'' scale. The total floor and room areas shall be shown in the
drawings. The drawings shall include:
(A) A plan of any proposed demolition work;
(B) A plan of each floor. For renovation, the existing conditions
and extent of new work should be clearly delineated;
(C) Elevations;
(D) Sections and typical details;
(E) Roof plan;
(F) Fire protection plans; and
(G) Technical engineering plans, including structural, mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical drawings.
(ii) If the project involves acquisition, remodeling, or
renovation, the applicant should include the current as-built site
plan, floor plans and building sections which show the present status
of the building and a description of the building's current use and
type of construction.
(7) Design development outline specifications. The applicant shall
provide eight copies of outline specifications which shall include a
general description of the project, site, architectural, structural,
electrical and mechanical systems such as elevators, air conditioning,
heating, plumbing, lighting, power, and interior finishes (floor
coverings, acoustical material, and wall and ceiling finishes).
(8) Design development cost estimates. The applicant shall provide
three copies of cost estimates showing the estimated cost of the
buildings or structures to be acquired or constructed in the project.
Cost estimates should list the cost of construction, contract
contingency, fixed equipment not included in the contract, movable
equipment, architect's fees and construction supervision and
inspection.
(9) A design development conference. After VA reviews design
development documents, a design development conference may be
recommended in order to provide applicants and their architects an
opportunity to learn VA procedures and requirements for the project and
to discuss VA review comments.
(10) Such other documentation as specified by VA in writing to the
applicant, that confirms or clarifies information provided in the
application.
(b) Receipt of additional information. The required additional
information must be received in acceptable form within the time frame
established by VA in a notice of fund availability published in the
Federal Register. VA reserves the right to remove any proposed project
from further consideration for grant assistance if the required
additional project information is not received in acceptable form by
the established deadline.
(c) Grand award. Following receipt of the additional information in
acceptable form (and, where applicable, provided that the environmental
review described in Sec. 17.714 indicates that the proposed project is
environmentally acceptable to VA), to the extent funds are available VA
will approve the application and send a grant agreement for execution
to the applicant.
Sec. 17.714 Environmental review requirements.
(a) Generally. Project selection is subject to completion of an
environmental review of the proposed site, and the project may be
modified or the site rejected as a result of that review. The
environmental effects must
[[Page 37029]]
be assessed in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) (NEPA) as
implemented pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's
applicable regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and VA's applicable
implementing regulations (38 CFR part 26).
(b) Responsibility for review. (1) VA will perform the
environmental review, in accordance with part 26 of this title, for
conditionally selected applications received directly from private
nonprofit organizations and governmental entities with special or
limited purpose powers. VA is not permitted to approve such
applications prior to its completion of this review. Because of time
constraints, any application subject to environmental review by VA that
requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (generally, an
application that VA determines would result in a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment in
accordance with the environmental assessment procedures (at 38 CFR part
26) will not be eligible for assistance under this part.
(2) Applicants that are States, metropolitan cities, urban
counties, Indian tribes, or other governmental entities with general
purpose powers shall include environmental documentation for the
project by submitting information establishing a Categorical Exclusion
(CE), a proposed Environmental Assessment (EA), or a proposed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The environmental documentation
will require approval by VA before final award of a construction or
acquisition grant under this part. (See 38 CFR 26.6 for compliance
requirements.) If the proposed actions involving construction or
acquisition do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment, the applicant shall submit a letter
noting a CE. If construction outside the walls of an existing structure
will involve more than 75,000 gross square feet (GSF), the application
shall include an EA to determine if an EIS is necessary for compliance
with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act 1969.
When the application submission requires an EA, the State shall briefly
describe the possible beneficial and/or harmful effect which the
project may have on the following impact categories:
(i) Transportation;
(ii) Air quality;
(iii) Noise;
(iv) Solid waste;
(v) Utilities;
(vi) Geology (soils/hydrology/flood plains);
(vii) Water quality;
(viii) Land use;
(ix) Vegetation, wildlife, aquatic, and ecology/wetlands;
(x) Economic activities;
(xi) Cultural resources;
(xii) Aesthetics;
(xiii) Residential population;
(xiv) Community services and facilities;
(xv) Community plans and projects; and
(xvi) Other.
(3) If an adverse environmental impact is anticipated, the action
to be taken to minimize the impact should be explained in the EA. An
entity covered by this section that believes that it does not have the
legal capacity to carry out the responsibilities required by 38 CFR
part 26 should contact the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem
Program, Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences Service (111C), U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20420, for further instructions. Determinations of legal capacity will
be made on a case-by-case basis.
Sec. 17.715 Aid for supportive services and supportive housing.
(a) Per diem payments. Aid in the form of per diem payments may be
paid to an entity meeting the requirements of the regulations of this
part under the heading ``VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem
Program,'' including the specific criteria of Sec. 17.716, if:
(1) VA referred the homeless veteran to a recipient of a grant
under this part (or entity eligible for such a grant as described in
Sec. 17.716); or
(2) VA authorized the provision of supportive services or
supportive housing for the homeless veteran.
(b) In-kind assistance. In lieu of per diem payments under this
section, VA may, with approval of the grant recipient (or entity
eligible for such a grant as described in Sec. 17.716), provide in-kind
assistance through the services of VA employees and the use of other VA
resources, to a grant recipient (or entity eligible for such a grant as
described in Sec. 17.716).
(c) Selection of per diem applicants. In awarding per diem
assistance, applications from grant recipients and non-grant recipients
will be reviewed and ranked separately. Funds will first be awarded to
grant recipients who request such assistance. If funds are still
available for non-grant recipients, VA will announce funding through a
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process as described in
Sec. 17.708. VA will not award any per diem payments when doing so
would decrease funding to those entities already receiving such
payments. For both grant recipients and non-grant recipients,
eligibility will be determined by the criteria described in
Sec. 17.716, and applications will be ranked according to scores
achieved on the portions of the application described in
Sec. 17.716(b)(4). Applicants must score a minimum of 500 points on
these portions to be eligible for per diem. Those applicants that meet
the eligibility criteria will be conditionally selected for per diem
assistance. Funds will be allocated to the highest ranked conditionally
selected applicants in descending order until funds are expended.
Payments will be contingent upon meeting the requirements of a site
inspection conducted by VA pursuant to Sec. 17.721.
(d) Continued receipt of per diem assistance. (1) Continued receipt
of per diem assistance for both grant recipients and non-grant
recipients will be contingent upon maintaining the program for which
per diem is provided so that it would score at least the required
minimum 500 points as described in Sec. 17.716(b)(4) on the
application. VA will ensure compliance by conducting inspections as
described in Sec. 17.721.
(2) Where the recipient fails to comply with paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, VA will issue a notice of the Department's intent to
discontinue per diem payments. The recipient will then have 30 days to
submit documentation demonstrating why payments should not be
terminated. After review of any such documentation, VA will issue a
final decision on termination of per diem payment.
(3) Continued payment is subject to availability of funds. When
necessary due to funding limitations, VA will, in proportion to the
decrease in funding available, decrease the per diem payment for each
authorized veteran.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7721, note)
Sec. 17.716 Eligibility to receive per diem payments.
An entity must be formally recognized by VA as eligible to receive
per diem payments under this section before per diem payments can be
made for the care of homeless veterans, except that per diem payments
may be made on behalf of a veteran up to three days prior to this
recognition.
(a) A grant recipient will be eligible if it receives the minimum
score as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(b) A non-grant recipient will be eligible if it is an entity
eligible to
[[Page 37030]]
receive a grant, which for the purposes of this section means:
(1) At least 75 percent of persons who are receiving supportive
services or supportive housing from the entity are veterans who may be
included in computation of the amount of aid payable from the
Department of Veterans Affairs;
(2) The supportive services or supportive housing program for which
per diem payments is requested was established after November 10, 1992;
(3) The entity is a public or nonprofit private entity; and
(4) The entity scores at least 500 cumulative points on the
following sections of the Grant/Per Diem application: Quality (1);
Targeting (2); Ability (3); Description of Need (4); and Coordination
with Other Programs (8). These sections correspond to the selection
criteria of Sec. 17.711(c).
(c) For grant recipients, only those programs that provide
supportive services or supportive housing (or the portions thereof)
created with grant funds will be considered for per diem assistance.
For non-grant recipients, only those portions of the supportive
services or supportive housing described in the application will be
considered for per diem assistance.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7721, note)
Sec. 17.717 Request for recognition of eligibility.
(a) Requests for recognition of eligibility may be addressed to the
VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Programs; Mental Health and
Behavioral Sciences Service (111C), U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
(b) For non-grant recipients, the receipt of application for per
diem will constitute the request for recognition of eligibility. Grant
recipients seeking per diem assistance will indicate this request on
the application. Grant recipients are not required to complete a
separate application for per diem assistance. VA will review those
portions of the grant application that pertain to per diem. Those
entities already receiving a grant must submit a request for
recognition to initiate the scoring of their application for per diem
payments.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7721, note)
Sec. 17.718 Approval of annexes and new facilities.
Separate applications for recognition must be filed for any annex,
branch, enlargement, expansion, or relocation of the site of service
provision of an eligible entity's facility which is not on the same or
contiguous grounds on which the parent facility is located. When an
eligible entity establishes sites which have not been inspected and
approved by VA, a request for separate approval of such sites must be
made. The prohibitions in Sec. 17.720 are also applicable to
applications for aid on behalf of any veterans cared for in a new
annex, branch or enlarged, expanded or relocated facility.
Sec. 17.719 Amount of aid payable.
The per diem amount payable for supportive housing is the current
VA State Home Program per diem rate for domiciliary care as set forth
in 38 U.S.C. 1741. The per diem amount payable for supportive services,
not provided in conjunction with supportive housing, is $1.10 for each
half-hour during which supportive services are provided up to $17.60
per day. These rates will be paid provided, however, the per diem
amount for supportive housing or supportive services (not provided in
conjunction with supportive housing) do not exceed one-half of the cost
to the per diem recipient of providing the services. Also, provided
further, per diem payment for supportive housing and supportive
services may be lessened because of budget restrictions as described in
Sec. 17.715(d)(3). Per diem payments may not be paid for a veteran for
both supportive housing and supportive services (not in conjunction
with supportive housing).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7721, note)
Sec. 17.720 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 17.720, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), and
(a)(2) are amended by removing ``17.715(a)'' and adding, in their
place, ``17.716''.
[FR Doc. 96-17836 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17824 Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37144-37181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17824]
[[Page 37143]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 129, and 135
Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 16, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37144]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 129, and 135
[Docket No. 28109; Notice No. 96-7]
RIN 2120-AF-76
Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise and update the Federal
Aviation Regulations to require certain operators to record additional
digital flight data recorder (DFDR) parameters. These revisions follow
a series of safety recommendations issued by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) decision that the DFDR rules should be revised
to upgrade recorder capabilities in most transport airplanes. These
revisions would allow additional information to be collected to ensure
more thorough accident or incident investigation and to enable industry
to predict certain trends and make necessary modifications before an
accident or incident occurs.
DATES: Comments on the proposed revisions to parts 121, 125, and 135
must be received by August 15, 1996. Comments on the proposed revisions
to part 129 must be received by November 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28109, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must be marked Docket No.
28109. Comments may also be submitted electronically to the following
Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be examined in
Room 915G weekdays, except on Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Rock, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-9567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposal in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in
triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments
received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of comments received. All comments received will be available,
both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules
Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this
notice must include a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28109.'' The
postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of NPRM's
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov
or the Federal Register's webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs
for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket
number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that
describes the application procedure.
Background
Statement of the Problem
The NTSB has submitted recommendations to the FAA to require the
recordation of additional parameters on certain flight data recorders.
These recommendations were submitted in response to accidents involving
two Boeing 737 aircraft that were operated by two different air
carriers. Both airplanes were equipped with flight data recorders
(FDR's), but in neither case did the FDR provide sufficient information
about airplane motion and flight control surface positions during the
accident sequence to enable the NTSB to determine a probable cause in
either accident.
The history of aircraft accidents and the lack of information that
has inhibited proper investigation of their causes is much broader than
recent experience with the Boeing 737. Historical records of airplane
incidents suggest that additional, reliable data for the entire fleet
of transport category airplanes is necessary to identify causes of
these incidents before accidents occur. This proposed rule seeks to
expand the data collection requirements to include all parameters that
can cost-effectively be collected.
History of FDR Regulations
Since the original development of foil flight recorders, both the
FAA and the NTSB have relied heavily on the data retrieved from them to
aid in accident and incident investigation. The limited capability of
the 6-parameter foil recorder made it virtually impossible to fully
identify the probable cause of certain accidents, such as those related
to windshear. Until the advent of more sophisticated flight data
recorders, many accidents were assumed to be caused by pilot error
since no other viable alternative could be identified. The high failure
rate of those recorders and their limited recording capabilities led
Congress to require the use of improved recorders.
On March 25, 1987, the FAA promulgated a final rule that required
operators, by May 26, 1995, to install improved (11-parameter digital)
flight data recorders [DFDR's] on all airplanes type certificated on or
before September 30, 1969, and operated under part 121 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (52 FR 9622). The final rule, adopted as 14 CFR
121.343(c), was issued in response to a recommendation from the NTSB
that was based on accident/incident files for January 1983 to February
1986
[[Page 37145]]
that revealed a high failure rate for metal foil flight recorders. The
data revealed that 37 recorders (48 percent) had one or more
malfunctioning parameters preceding the accident or incident,
preventing the recording or readout of pertinent data.
On July 11, 1988, the FAA promulgated a final rule that required
the recording of additional parameters for certain newer airplanes.
Airplanes manufactured after May 26, 1989, and certain other airplanes
were required to have a DFDR that would record 17 or more parameters.
In August 1991, the Air Transport Association (ATA) petitioned the
FAA for an exemption from Sec. 121.343(c). The ATA stated that the 1994
compliance date for the DFDR retrofit was inappropriate when
considering the schedule for either retrofitting airplanes with nose
abatement equipment or retiring airplanes in order to comply with the
Stage 3 transition mandated in September 1991 (56 FR 48628, September
25, 1991). The FAA denied the ATA exemption request, stating that the
Stage 3 transition rule did not mandate the retirement of any Stage 2
airplanes. The FAA pointed out that noise abatement equipment was
expected to be available for virtually the entire active fleet.
In June 1992, the ATA again requested that the FAA extend the May
26, 1994, DFDR compliance date for its members and similarly situated
operators. In the alternative, the ATA requested that the FAA establish
a delayed DFDR retrofit schedule that coincided with the Stage 3
transition interim compliance dates to avoid having to install new
DFDR's on airplanes that were scheduled to be retired. The ATA asserted
that the compliance deadline would require its members to install
DFDR's on Stage 2 airplanes that would be retired within 5\1/2\ years
of the May 1994 compliance date to remain in compliance with the part
91 noise operating rule. The ATA asserted that this DFDR retrofit
requirement for State 2 airplanes would impose substantial costs on
them with little perceived benefit.
On January 29, 1993, the FAA granted an exemption to ATA members to
operate certain Stage 2 airplanes equipped with DFDR's that have 6
rather than 11 operational parameters until the aircraft are retired,
but no later than December 31, 1998.
On November 17, 1993, the ATA submitted a petition for rulemaking
to amend Sec. 121.343. The ATA stated that the exemption granted did
not provide the scope of relief necessary for its members and similarly
situated air carriers, and that a change to the rule was necessary. As
justification for this proposed change, the ATA stated in its petition
that there would be significant compliance costs and that there were
problems with the technical requirements of DFDR installation.
In January 1994, to further support its petition, the ATA presented
updated information indicating that conditions in the industry had
changed further, and that meeting the May 26, 1994, compliance date
would be impossible for a significant number of Stage 2 airplanes
because of changes in fleet plans, and equipment availability and
certification difficulties.
Although the FAA was unable to support the ATA position, the agency
stated that some relief was needed from the combined impact of the
Stage 3 transition and DFDR retrofit rules and the then-current
equipment availability problems, at least as far as Stage 2 airplanes
were concerned. Accordingly, in May 1994, the FAA amended
Sec. 121.343(c) to provide to part 121 operators up to one year of
relief for the retrofit of Stage 2 airplanes that were subject to the
noise transition requirements of 14 CFR part 91. The extension of the
compliance date for 11-parameter DFDR's on Stage 2 airplanes to May
1995 was intended to allow operators to retire some of the affected
airplanes as of the December 31, 1994, noise compliance deadline, and
to acquire the necessary equipment for the remaining Stage 2 airplanes.
No problems with meeting the 1995 compliance date were reported.
NTSB Recommendations
On February 22, 1995, the NTSB submitted recommendations A-95-25,
A-95-26, and A-95-27, which recommended that the FAA require upgrades
of the flight data recorders installed on certain airplanes to record
certain additional parameters not required by the current regulations.
As justification for these recommendations, the NTSB submitted
background information. The full recommendation has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking and is summarized below.
On September 8, 1994, a USAir Boeing 737-300, flight 427, was on a
scheduled passenger flight from Chicago, Illinois, to Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. During the approach to Pittsburgh, the airplane suddenly
rolled to the left and pitched down until it reached a nearly vertical
attitude and struck the ground near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. The
airplane was destroyed; none of the 5 crewmembers or 127 passengers
survived. The NTSB's investigation of this accident is continuing, and
no probable cause has yet been determined.
On March 3, 1991, a United Airlines Boeing 737-291, flight 585, was
on a scheduled passenger flight from Denver to Colorado Springs,
Colorado. As the airplane was completing the turn to final approach, it
rolled rapidly to the right and pitched down, reaching a nearly
vertical attitude before it struck the ground. The airplane was
destroyed; none of the five crewmembers or 20 passengers survived. In
its report, the NTSB was unable to make a determination of probable
cause of the accident.
Both airplanes were equipped with flight data recorders. In neither
case did the recorder provide information about airplane motion and
flight control surface positions during the accident sequence that the
NTSB has stated would be important in determining a probable cause of
the accident.
In the Colorado Springs accident, five flight data parameters--
altitude, airspeed, heading, vertical acceleration, and microphone
keying--were recorded by the FDR in accordance with Sec. 121.343 for
airplanes of its age. The FDR of the airplane involved in the Colorado
Springs accident was not required to record other parameters that the
NTSB has cited as critical to its accident investigation, including
airplane pitch and roll attitude, engine thrust values, lateral and
longitudinal acceleration, control wheel position, rudder pedal
position, and the position of control surfaces such as the rudder,
aileron, and spoiler.
The Aliquippa accident also involved a Boeing 737, but that
airplane's FDR system had been retrofitted with six additional
parameters in anticipation of the 1995 deadline for these enhancements.
However, the additional parameters did not include information on the
positions of cockpit controls, flight control surface position, lateral
acceleration, or autopilot status parameters that the NTSB has stated
hampered its continuing accident investigation. In a public hearing on
the accident, conducted by the NTSB in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on
January 23-27, 1995, witnesses from the FAA, aircraft manufacturers,
and airlines agreed that additional FDR parameters would have assisted
the NTSB in determining the probable cause of this accident.
Had the airplanes involved in the Colorado Springs and Aliquippa
accidents been equipped with enhanced FDR's, the NTSB stated that the
information from the additional parameters would have allowed it to
quickly identify any abnormal control
[[Page 37146]]
surface movements, configuration changes, or autopilot status changes
that may have been involved in the loss of airplane control. This
information from the additional parameters might also have allowed the
NTSB to rule out certain factors, if warranted, and to focus its
investigations on other areas.
The NTSB has stated that the additional data parameters recorded on
some FDR's substantially aided its investigation of two regional
airline accidents that occurred during 1994. The first accident
occurred on October 31, 1994, while an American Eagle ATR-72-210,
flight 4184, was on a scheduled flight from Indianapolis, Indiana, to
Chicago, Illinois. The flight had been placed in a holding pattern over
Roselawn, Indiana, because of weather delays at O'Hare Airport. The
flight was cleared to remain in the holding pattern and to descend from
10,000 to 8,000 feet. The airplane rolled to the right, entered a steep
descent, and struck the ground. None of the 64 passengers or 4
crewmembers survived. The NTSB's continuing investigation has not yet
determined the probable cause of the accident; however, information
from the enhanced FDR enabled the NTSB to identify, within hours after
receiving the recorder in its laboratories, the key events leading to
the airplane's departure from controlled flight and the events during
its final descent.
The ATR-72 was equipped with an FDR that recorded 98 parameters,
including vane angle of attack (VAOA), aileron bellcrank position, flap
position, aileron trim position, and autopilot engagement status. The
FDR data showed that, as the airplane was descending through 9,400
feet, the wing flaps began to retract and the airplane's VAOA
increased. As the VAOA reached 5 degrees, the autopilot disengaged, and
within \1/4\ second the ailerons deflected to near maximum travel in
the right-wing-down direction. The FDR data also showed that the
rolling moment was reversed when the VAOA was reduced to below 5
degrees and the ailerons deflected in the left-wing-down direction. The
right rolling moment recurred as the VAOA again increased to 5 degrees
and the ailerons deflected in the right-wing-down direction. Control of
the airplane was not restored in time to prevent impact with the
ground.
The data available from the ATR-72 FDR indicated to investigators
that the airplane rolled as expected in response to aileron control
surface movements, and that the aileron movements were correlated with
increases in the airplane's angle of attack. As a result, the NTSB was
able to focus its efforts on possible explanations for the aileron
control surface movements and, within days of the accident, the NTSB
issued safety recommendations to minimize the likelihood of similar
occurrences in the future. As part of its continuing investigation, the
NTSB is also examining readouts from FDR's with expanded parameters
from seven other ATR airplanes that have reportedly encountered flight
control anomalies, three of which have shown similarities to those
recorded before the accident.
In the second accident, on February 1, 1994, an American Eagle Saab
340B, flight 3641, was approaching Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on a
scheduled passenger flight from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas. As the
airplane descended through 9,000 feet, both engines failed. The
flightcrew executed a forced landing at False River Air Park in New
Roads, Louisiana, during which the airplane sustained substantial
damage. A flight attendant received minor injuries during the emergency
evacuation. The 2 pilots and 23 passengers aboard were not injured.
The FDR installed on the Saab 340B recorded 128 parameters. Data
from the FDR showed that as the airplane descended through 9,040 feet,
there was a rapid rise of both propellers' rotational speed to well
above the maximum allowable revolutions per minute. Because the FDR was
equipped to capture the positions of the engine power levers as well as
the engine RPM's, the NTSB was able to determine that at the same time
the propeller speed increased, the power levers moved from the flight
idle gate position to aft of the ground idle detents. The airplane's
approved flight manual prohibits such power lever movements while in
flight. This flightcrew action explained the propeller overspeed, which
resulted in dual engine failure. With the expanded FDR data, the NTSB
was able to rule out alternative explanations for the propeller
overspeed, including propeller system failures that previously had
affected similar propellers installed in another turboprop regional
airliner.
The importance of FDR data is not limited to investigations of
catastrophic accidents. Flight recorder data from incidents, which are
less serious but more common, can provide information to help prevent
accidents involving similar circumstances. Following the Colorado
Springs and Aliquippa accidents, the NTSB investigated 28 Boeing 737
incidents (U.S. operators) involving anomalous rudder activity or
uncommanded roll oscillations. The FDR's aboard these incident
airplanes, however, were not equipped to record flight control surface
positions, flight control inputs, or lateral acceleration. Like 79
percent of all U.S.-registered Boeing 737's, the airplanes involved in
the incidents were manufactured prior to May 26, 1989; consequently,
they were required to record only the five basic FDR parameters. As a
result, certain objective data were not available from the FDR's, and
investigators had little more than the flightcrews' subjective
recollections of these incidents to aid in determining cause.
In contrast to the investigations of 28 Boeing 737 incidents, for
which important FDR data were not available, investigations of other
incidents have been greatly aided by the availability of enhanced
recorded information. These incidents involved airplanes equipped with
a digital data bus that transmits information from many sensors to the
onboard recording devices.
In 1993, a British Airways Boeing 747-436 experienced a nose-down
pitching moment immediately after departure from London Heathrow
Airport. The captain avoided ground contact by exerting substantial
back pressure on his control column. The incident was investigated by
the United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB). Use of
information recorded by a Quick Access Recorder (QAR) was useful in the
AAIB's investigation, and led to a recommendation that the FAA require
modifications of Boeing 747 hydraulic systems and elevator power
control units.
Between June and August 1993, an Air France Boeing 737-300 airplane
experienced three rudder deflection anomalies. For each incident,
approximately 206 flight data parameters were available to the French
accident investigation authority. The data were recorded on QAR's, and
available parameters included control surface positions, flight path
data, acceleration in three axes, yaw damper, and autopilot modes. The
NTSB is evaluating the data from these incidents for possible
applicability to the Aliquippa and Colorado Springs accidents.
The data parameters currently required to be recorded on FDR's are
based on the NTSB's accident investigation experience and the capacity
of the recording devices. Historically, many accidents investigated by
the NTSB focused on wind shear, takeoff overruns, and instances of
controlled flight into terrain; fewer accidents may have involved the
inflight loss of lateral or directional control. In response, FDR
[[Page 37147]]
parameter requirements focused on airplane performance (such as
airspeed, altitude, and longitudinal acceleration) rather than on
flight controls (such as rudder position and trim settings). However,
recent accidents and incidents have persuaded the NTSB that more
information about flight controls should be recorded by FDR's.
Among the additional flight control parameters cited as important
by the NTSB are those that pertain to the positions of flight control
inputs and control surface positions. Under current rules. Airplanes
fitted with conventional flight controls are permitted to record either
the cockpit control input (such as control wheel position) or the
control surface position (such as the direction and amount of aileron
deflection), if one can be derived from the other. However, in its
investigations of the recent Boeing 737 accidents, the NTSB found that
in some failure modes, flight control surfaces could move independently
of cockpit flight control inputs. Also, under some conditions,
additional information is needed by investigators to determine whether
the controls on the flight deck caused the control surfaces to move, or
vice versa. Consequently, the NTSB strongly recommends that FDR's
should record both the control inputs and control surface positions.
Flight control trim information, including the positions of trim
controls for roll and yaw, also has been found to be essential during
recent accident investigations. For example, the aileron and rudder
trim parameters provided answers to critical questions early in the
investigation of the Roselawn accident. The airplane involved had
previously experienced trim anomalies; the FDR revealed none on the
accident flight.
Recent technological changes have made feasible the acquisition and
storage of large amounts of data on FDR's. Today, even for older
airplanes, many FDR systems are capable of recording additional
parameters because of unused capacity in the flight recording system.
In terms of flight recording systems, there are two general categories
of airplanes in the current air carrier fleet: those that operate
predominately with analog systems, and those that operate predominately
with digital systems.
On an airplane that operates with an analog system, information
from remotely located data sensors (for example, a rudder position
sensor located in the tail section) is transmitted in an analog format
to the FDR via dedicated wires. The information is then converted to
digital format in the FDR or the flight data acquisition unit (FDAU).
On an airplane equipped with a digital data bus, information is
transmitted in digital format from a multitude of sensors, along a
single, high-capacity communications pathway (data bus). Information
transmitted on the bus is provided to a number of systems, including
flight management computers. cockpit displays, QAR's, and FDR's.
Additional data can be fed from the bus to the FDR, based on
information that is already on the bus for other purposes or added to
the bus by new sensors.
During the public hearing on the Aliquippa accident, a major U.S.
air carrier expressed concern about the costs of upgrading FDR's on the
carrier's fleet. The NTSB recognized that enhanced FDR capability needs
to be weighed against the costs. However, the Board also believes that
the costs should be balanced against the remaining useful life and
revenue-earning potential of an airplane.
The NTSB believes that transport category airplanes of a type that
is still in production and operated under 14 CFR Parts 121, 125, or 135
should be retroffitted with the sensors and FDAU needed to record the
parameters listed in its recommendation. Further, certain airplanes
that are out of production but continue to be heavily used in U.S.
airline fleets should also be retrofitted to record the parameters
listed in its recommendation.
The NTSB recommended that the FAA complete its rulemaking on FDR
enhancements by December 31, 1995, and that upgrades be completed by
January 1, 1998. Further, since Boeing 737 airplanes account for about
23 percent of the U.S. air carrier fleet, the NTSB recommends that FDR
enhancement be accomplished sooner for these airplanes. The NTSB
recommended that the FAA require all Boeing 737 airplanes operated
under 14 CFR Parts 121 and 125 be equipped by December 31, 1995, with
FDR's that record the parameters required by current regulations plus
lateral acceleration, flight control inputs for pitch, roll, and yaw,
and primary flight control surface positions for pitch, roll, and yaw.
The following recommendations were submitted by the NTSB to the
Federal Aviation Administration:
I. Require that each Boeing 737 airplane operated under 14 CFR Part
121 or 125 be equipped, by December 31, 1995, with a flight data
recorder system that records, as a minimum, the parameters required by
current regulations applicable plus the following parameters: lateral
acceleration, flight control inputs for pitch, roll, and yaw, and
primary flight control surface positions for pitch, roll, and yaw.
(Classified as Class I, Urgent Action) (Recommendation No. A-95-25)
II. Amend, by December 31, 1995, 14 CFR Secs. 121.343, 125.225, and
135.152 to require that Boeing 727 airplanes, Lockheed L-1011
airplanes, and all transport category airplanes operated under 14 CFR
Parts 121, 125, or 135 whose type certificates apply to airplanes still
in production, be equipped to record on a flight data recorder system,
as a minimum, the parameters listed in ``Proposed Minimum FDR Parameter
Requirements for Airplanes in Service'' plus any other parameters
required by current regulations applicable to each individual airplane.
Specify that the airplanes be so equipped by January 1, 1998, or by the
later date when they meet Stage 3 noise requirements but, regardless of
Stage 3 compliance status, no later than December 31, 1999. (Classified
as Class II, Priority Action) (Recommendation No. A-95-26)
III. Amend, by December 31, 1995, 14 CFR 121.343, 125.225, and
135.152 to require that all airplanes operated under 14 CFR Parts 121,
125, or 135, having 10 or more seats, and for which an original
airworthiness certificate is received after December 31, 1996, record
the parameters listed in ``Proposed FDR Enhancements for Newly
Manufactured Airplanes'' on a flight data recorder having at least a
25-hour recording capacity. (Classified as Class II, Priority Action)
(Recommendation No. A-95-27)
FAA Response to the NTSB Recommendation
The FAA responded to the above NTSB recommendations in a letter
dated May 16, 1995, which is summarized below.
In response to Safety Recommendation A-95-25, the FAA stated that
it agrees that Boeing 737 airplanes that operate under 14 CFR Part 121
or 125 should be equipped with flight data recorders that include, as a
minimum, the parameters referenced in this safety recommendation. The
proposed rule would require all Boeing 737 airplanes as well as certain
other airplanes operated under 14 CFR Parts 121, 125, or 135 having 10
or more seats to be equipped to record the parameters that were
specified by the NTSB.
The FAA received enough valid information from the public to
determine that the schedule for retrofit completion by December 31,
1995,
[[Page 37148]]
could not be met. The proposed date would have imposed an extremely
aggressive retrofit schedule that, if it were physically possible,
would have resulted in substantial airplane groundings and very high
associated costs. Furthermore, if operators had been required to
retrofit all Boeing 737 airplanes before the end of 1995, each of these
airplanes might have had to undergo a second retrofit to meet the
expanded requirements that are being proposed in response to NTSB
Recommendations A-95-26 and -27.
In response to NTSB recommendation A-95-26, the FAA agrees that
airplanes still in production should be required to be equipped with
DFDR's that record, as a minimum, the parameters listed in the NTSB
recommendation.
In response to NTSB recommendation A-95-27, the FAA agrees that
airplanes operated under parts 121, 125, or 135 having 10 or more seats
for which an original airworthiness certificate is received after
December 31, 1996, should record the parameters listed in ``proposed
FDR Enhancements for Newly Manufactured Airplanes'' on a flight data
recorder having at least a 25 -hour recording capacity.
On March 14, 1995, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of a public hearing, and solicited public comment pursuant to
the NTSB recommendations. On April 20, 1995, the public hearing was
held in Washington, DC. Eight speakers from the aviation community gave
presentations. Copies of the presentations have been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
After reviewing the comments submitted and listening to the
presentations, the FAA determined that it would be beneficial to have
aviation industry personnel assist in any related rulemaking efforts.
On June 27, 1995, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register
that the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) established the
Flight Data Recorder Working Group (60 FR 33247), which included
members representing the Air Transport Association, Aerospace
Industries Association of America. General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, Regional Airline Association, Air Line Pilots Association,
and the FAA. The NTSB was invited to participate in working group
efforts in an advisory capacity. The working group's task was to
recommend to ARAC rulemaking proposals or other alternatives that would
satisfactorily address the NTSB recommendations. The ARAC could then
make one or more recommendations to the FAA, and the FAA would
determine whether to issue a proposal based on the ARAC recommendation.
The ARAC DFDR working group first met in June 1995 in Washington,
DC. Work continued on a draft proposed rulemaking until November, with
members communicating by electronic mail, fax, telephone conference
calls, and in person at subsequent working group meetings.
Several elements of the proposed rule were discussed many times,
including the characteristics that would define various classes of
aircraft (e.g., date of certification, date of manufacture, current FDR
equipment installations and configurations, equipment availability),
the inclusion of certain airplane types in the applicability of a new
rule, the compliance times attached to each category of airplane
described.
Despite numerous meetings and proposals, no consensus was reached
as to the requirements that would be acceptable to the FAA, NTSB,
airplane operators and airplane manufacturers. On November 15, 1995,
the working group presented to the ARAC Executive Committee a summary
of the work undertaken by the working group. The presentation
highlighted the areas where consensus had not been reached, including
some of the actual parameters that would be included in the final list
of requirements and the differences between the proposed list and those
required under the European Joint Aviation Requirements for Operations
(JAR-Ops), whether airplanes with 10-19 passenger seats should be
covered since they were not specifically mentioned in the NTSB
recommendation, whether expected but not currently existing technology
could be mandated in future requirements for new airplanes, and several
issues concerning the cost figures used in the draft regulatory
evaluation. The ARAC Executive Committee decided that each committee
member would review the two versions of the proposed rulemaking
document that were presented and make individual comments to be
submitted to the FAA by December 1.
Comments from several ARAC Executive Committee members were
forwarded to the FAA on December 4. The ARAC Executive Committee made
no formal recommendation to the FAA concerning the proposed rule
documents reviewed and discussed at the November 15 meeting. Of the
comments received on December 4, the general comments are addressed
here; specific comments as to the inclusion or exclusion of certain
provisions from the proposed rule are included in the explanation of
the proposed rule provisions below.
General Comments From the ARAC Executive Committee Members
Several members stated that the decision to propose to require up
to 88 parameters for airplanes manufactured five years after the final
rule is effective will create a disharmony with the European JAR-Ops
and will create a disparity in the configuration of U.S. and European
airplanes, limiting their exchange.
The FAA acknowledges that the proposed requirement to record 88
paramenters exceeds the 57 parameters being required by JAR-Ops, but no
disharmony is created. The first 57 parameters (and their values in
proposed Appendix M to part 121) were arranged so as to be the same as
those rquired by JAR-Ops, at the suggestion and request of the working
group members, including two U.S. manufacturers, they are considered
harmonized. The fact that the U.S. requirement would exceed the
European requirement is not disharmony, since there is no further JAR
requirement with which the proposed rule could disagree. The 88
paramenters came from the NTSB recommendation already discussed, which
served as a basis for implementing a rule change. The FAA never
represented that the proposed rule would be limited to JAR-Ops, since
the agency understood that this would not satisfy the NTSB
recommendation. In fact, the original NSTB recommendation included more
than 88 parameters. The number was reduced slightly through certain
parameter combinations and their rearrangement to coincide with JAR-
Ops.
The NTSB has also indicated to the FAA that at least some of the
European manufacturers are already equipping their airplanes to record
88 or more parameters and that it does not anticipate a problem with
the proposed requirement. Further, the NTSB is proposing through ICAO
that the 88 parameters become the international standard; it is using
the list and Appendix values developed for this proposed rule as its
proposal to ICAO.
Some members commented that it is difficult to visualize the
proposed DFDR upgrade scheme by reading the rule language alone, and
proposed that a flow chart be included to assist with a rule overview.
The FAA agrees and is including a chart in the form of a matrix, but
cautions that the chart is a summary and should not be regarded as a
substitute for the actual rule language. The chart can be found in this
[[Page 37149]]
document, immediately following the general discussion of the proposed
rule.
At least one member recommends that a phased compliance schedule be
adopted for upgraded DFDR installation, rather than the proposed 4-year
compliance time to provide more flexibility to operators.
The FAA does not understand why a mandatory schedule of compliance
(with a suggested 35% of an operator's fleet requiring the upgrade
within 2 years) is considered more flexible than a simple final
compliance date in four years--an operator may comply as early as it
likes within the proposed 4 years. The FAA's experience with compliance
schedules has not always been positive, and several other operator
compliance schedules already exist for other requirements. Adding yet
another schedule for DFDR equipment modifications could lead to several
schedule conflicts and result in numerous requests for exemptions and
extensions compromising the intent of each rule involved. Accordingly,
the FAA does not consider an additional compliance schedule to be
advisable.
Another comment suggesting that a 6-year compliance schedule be
considered rather than 4 years is not addressed in this document
because it was never proposed at the working group level, nor has any
data been submitted as to the comparative costs of compliance. The FAA
notes that longer compliance schedules almost always result in reduced
costs. However, the proposed rule already exceeds the NTSB time
recommendation for implementation of the upgrades, and the safety
considerations of upgraded DFDR equipment are too serious to consider
lengthening the proposed 4-year compliance time. The proposed
compliance is the product of significant working group discussion and
elimination of a 2-year alternative that was predicted to be nearly
impossible because of equipment approval, availability and airplane
down time. Without similar cost data from the commenter, a 6-year
compliance time cannot be evaluated properly.
The comments concerning the proposed compliance time imply some
disagreement with the provision that upgrades must be installed
beginning at the next heavy maintenance check that occurs two years
after the effective date of the final rule (but in any case within four
years). That provision was added to prevent operators from waiting
until the last minute to install upgrades, causing a logjam in
scheduling and equipment availability; a similar provision was shown to
have worked well when the last amendment to the DFDR rules was done in
1994. Further, at the working group meetings, this provision was not
only acknowledged as necessary, the language was discussed and changed
several times at the request of the member operators. Accordingly, the
language that defines a heavy maintenance check as any time an airplane
is scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days and is scheduled
to include access to major structural components is included in the
proposed rule as a result of working group discussions and general
agreement. No proposed phased compliance schedule or problem with the
included provision was raised at the working group meetings.
Similarly, operators of small airplanes comment that the same heavy
maintenance check provision is inappropriate for their operations. The
FAA has changed the proposed rule to include the words ``or
equivalent'' in the provision that relates to smaller airplanes, and
specifically requests that if operators of these airplanes have a more
appropriate way of describing their maintenance practices so as to
achieve a similar result, they should submit that language as a comment
to the proposed rule. This issue was not raised at the working group
level during drafting of the proposed rule.
Several commenters stated that they felt that the proposed
requirement to record lateral acceleration is unnecessary if both
rudder pedal and rudder position are also recorded. The NTSB disagrees
that lateral acceleration is redundant since it may show the effect of
outside forces on an airplane that are separate from the effect of
rudder movement. The NTSB cautions that the concern over lateral
acceleration and rudder pedal and position is not limited to the
accidents and incidents reported on the Boeing 737; the proposed
requirement to record those parameters takes into account all airplane
types and the critical nature of the information that such recordation
may uncover. The NTSB also notes that the upgrade from dual to triaxial
accelerometers may not necessarily be costly, as one commenter states,
since at least one manufacturer has a ``trade-in'' program for that
equipment. Manufacturers of this equipment are urged to supply the FAA
with further data concerning the cost and availability of this
equipment.
Commenters also expressed some confusion over the effect of the
proposed rule on airplanes currently covered by exemption No. 5593,
Stage 2 airplanes that are scheduled to be retired and are allowed to
operate with 6-parameter recorders through 1998. The terms of the
exemption were clear when granted--it was only to be used for airplanes
that were scheduled to be retired by the end of 1998; it was not an
exemption that could be used to delay the upgrade to an 11-parameter
recorder that was due in 1995. Accordingly, since any airplane covered
by the exemption should be retired before the proposed compliance date,
this proposed rule should have no effect on the exempted airplanes.
As the FAA has stated previously, any airplane covered by the
exemption that is not retired but is instead retrofitted to meet the
Stage 3 noise requirements must also upgrade to an 11-parameter
recorder before it is allowed to operate. If a decision to noise
retrofit causes an airplane to have to undergo two DFDR retrofits--to
an 11-parameter recorder to operate past 1998 and then to the
requirement of this proposed rule--it is a decision of an individual
operator, and will only result from a failure to effectively plan its
fleet composition or by an abuse of the previous DFDR upgrade
requirement and exemption No. 5593. The FAA does not intend to lengthen
the term of the exemption for any operator.
Finally, more than one commenter objected to the change that would
require the recordation of both pilot inputs and actual control surface
positions. The current requirements call for one or the other to be
recorded. Discussion of this issue consumed an appreciable amount of
time in the working group, and covered the perceived need for the data
and the cost and capability of recording both parameters (input and
output). Although consensus was not reached, the FAA is including this
provision in the proposed rule because the NTSB considers it among the
most critical of the recommended parameters. As stated previously, NTSB
investigations have shown that in some failure modes, flight control
surfaces can move independent of cockpit flight controls. Under some
conditions, additional information is necessary to determine whether
flight deck controls caused the control surfaces to move, or if the
movement of the control surface caused the cockpit controls to move.
The FAA accepts the NTSB recommendation since the current practice of
allowing one input to be recorded to demonstrate the movement of both
the control surfaces and cockpit controls has been shown to be
insufficient.
General Discussion of the Proposal
The FAA stresses that the ARAC working group provided valuable
input to the proposed rule, and that many
[[Page 37150]]
issues were brought forth and the position of the members explained,
even if consensus could not be reached on each issue. For example,
there was basic agreement among the working group members as to the
framework of the proposed rule, including the categories of airplanes
to be upgraded in various phases. As described below, consensus could
not be reached on the description of future-manufactured airplanes or
the number of parameters that they would be required to record.
Similarly, because of the considerable amount of time required to
complete the economic analysis, the efforts of the working group were
often well ahead of supporting economic data analysis, which included
data that were supplied by the working group member organizations.
As noted previously, the ARAC did not formally recommend either
version of the draft proposed rules it received from the working group.
Accordingly, the FAA is promulgating this NPRM based on the
recommendations of the NTSB and the results of the significant working
group efforts that it can support.
If adopted, this proposed rule would amend the DFDR rules, and
associated appendices, as they apply to airplanes operating under parts
121, 125, 129, and 135. The current regulations, depending on the age
of the airplanes, require as a minimum that either 11 or 17 parameters
be recorded in every airplane; in some cases, more parameters must be
recorded. Proposed requirements for part 125 closely parallel part 121
requirements, except for minor differences in the age and configuration
of affected airplanes. Part 129 does not currently have a DFDR
requirement; however, the FAA is now proposing a DFDR requirement in
part 129 for U.S.-registered airplanes. Proposed requirements for part
135 would apply only to newly manufactured airplanes that will be used
in schedules service; there are not retrofit requirements proposed for
on-demand, nonschedules airplanes.
The FAA recognizes that the program envisioned by the proposed rule
would require a substantial financial undertaking by the airline
industry. Accordingly, commenters are expressly invited to recommend
alternative approaches that could reduce the cost burden. For example,
are there certain airplanes or certain models of airplanes not
discussed in this document that should be excluded from this proposed
rule, and if so, what is the rationale for excluding these airplanes?
Recognizing that a change in the proposed number of required parameters
or the elimination of certain proposed parameters could significantly
alter the costs involved, are there other, less costly means to obtain
the information needed for accident and incident investigations? The
FAA recognizes that cost could be reduced by further extending the
compliance schedule; at the same time, NTSB needs critical information
in a timely manner to complete its investigations effectively. If the
compliance schedule is extended further, are there incentives that
would encourage operators to comply earlier?
Commenters advocating a different regulatory approach are strongly
encouraged to set forth specific recommendations and explain both the
costs and benefits involved in the changes recommended. The FAA will
weigh any recommendations with particular care, and it can do so only
if meaningful cost and safety data are provided.
Part 121
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 121.344 and add a new Sec. 121.344a.
Current Sec. 121.343 is not being revised because it is necessary to
retain the current regulations for airplanes that are excluded from
compliance with these proposed amendments. Airplanes specifically
excluded from the proposed FDR upgrade include State 2 airplanes that
are subject to the phased compliance rules of Sec. 91.801(c). Following
considerable analysis, the FAA has determined that, if they remain
Stage 2, these airplanes do not have enough remaining useful life to
justify the cost of FDR retrofit proposed by this document. The FAA has
also proposed that certain other aircraft types that are no longer in
production and are in limited use in air carrier operations be excluded
because the cost associated with retrofitting these airplanes with new
DFDR's would cause undue economic burden and would yield little safety
return.
The proposed amendments to Sec. 121.344 would require that all
turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes--including
airplanes having a seating capacity of 20-30 that were formerly
operated under part 135--record at least 18 specified parameters,
except for airplanes with more than two engines. In some cases,
compliance would require a retrofit of a flight data recorder and/or
the addition of sensors and wiring capable of recording the specified
parameters, or a reprogramming of the current recorder to accommodate
the specified parameters. Requirements for DFDR's on newer airplanes
and newly manufactured airplanes are also being revised to require the
recordation of additional parameters.
On December 20, 1995, the FAA published a final rule ``Commuter
Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements'' (60
FR 65832, FAA Docket No. 28154), which requires airplanes having a
passenger seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember
seat, of 10 to 19 seats to be operated under part 121. That rule did
not address FDR's because this rulemaking project was in process.
Proposed new Sec. 121.344a would apply to those airplanes formerly
operated under part 135.
Proposed Sec. 121.344 would require Boeing 737 airplanes to be
equipped with the expanded flight data recorder systems recommended by
the NTSB as part of the retrofit of the overall active fleet. The FAA
determined that compliance with the NTSB recommendation to retrofit
these airplanes by December 31, 1995, would have resulted in
substantial airplane groundings and very high associated costs.
Furthermore, if operators had been required to retrofit all Boeing 737
airplanes before the end of 1995, each of these airplanes might have
had to undergo a second retrofit to meet the expanded requirements
depending on what is adopted as a result of NTSB Safety Recommendation
A-95-26 and-27, discussed earlier in this document.
Accordingly, this proposed rule reflects the FAA's adoption of the
ARAC working group suggestion that NTSB recommendations A-95-25 and A-
95-26 be consolidated for rulemaking purposes.
Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes
Proposed Sec. 121.344(a): This paragraph lists the operating
parameters that would be required to be recorded by DFDR's required by
this section. The list is consistent with both European standards and
the parameters recommended by the NTSB in its ``Proposed FDR
enhancements for newly manufactured airplanes.'' The ARAC working group
used the European standards and the NTSB proposal as a basis for this
list of parameters and made minor revisions to it that would apply to
both new and in-service airplanes.
The parameters listed in this paragraph are presented in order of
their priority. Where the rule requires the recording of additional
parameters based on the capability of installed equipment, the
additional parameters should be selected in the order given in this
paragraph. In some instances, individual parameters need only be
[[Page 37151]]
recorded if the equipment needed is already installed in the airplane.
For example, angle of attack, Sec. 121.344(a)(32) need only be recorded
if the sensor for that parameter is already installed. These parameters
are designated ``when an information source is installed.'' In any
instance, if a sensor is installed, the data must be made available to
the FDR, unless it would compromise a critical function. Individual
members of the ARAC working group suggested that something other than a
``critical function'' be used as a basis. After further consideration,
the FAA has determined that the term critical function is well
understood by aircraft manufacturers in terms of FDR functions, and no
new terms will be introduced.
The introductory text to paragraph (a) also explains that when the
phrase ``when an information source is installed'' is used, it
indicates that no change in equipment was intended in requiring this
parameter to be recorded. Although the parameters are listed in
priority order in this paragraph, the ARAC considered that some of the
parameters that carry the designated text should be required only when
the recording system on the airplane is sufficient to record these
parameters. Where recording one of the parameters that includes the
noted phrase would require new equipment such as a DFDAU or recorder,
that parameter is not required to be recorded.
Airplanes Manufactured on or Before October 11, 1991
Proposed Sec. 121.344(b): Except for certain older airplanes
(identified below), this paragraph establishes a final compliance date
of [insert date 4 years from the effective date of the final rule], for
all turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes manufactured on
or before October 11, 1991. By that date, all affected airplanes must
be equipped with a DFDR that is capable of recording the first 17 (or
18) parameters listed in Sec. 121.344(a).
Proposed Sec. 121.344(b)(1) would apply to airplanes that were not
equipped with a flight data acquisition unit on [insert date of
publication of NPRM], and currently record 11 parameters of flight
data. The recordation of lateral acceleration, paragraph (a)(18), would
be required for certain airplanes with more than two engines only if
the capacity to record this parameter is available on the FDR.
Information obtained during the rulemaking process indicated that for
airplanes that were manufactured on or before October 11, 1991 that
have more than two engines, the recording of lateral acceleration could
exceed the capacity of installed recorders and would require an
expensive equipment retrofit for the sake of one parameter.
These non-FDAU airplanes would be required to record these
parameters within the ranges, accuracies, and intervals specified in
current Appendix B to part 121. Although this rule would create a new
Appendix M, these older airplanes would continue to use the values in
Appendix B that are currently in effect in order to stay within the
capacity of installed recorders and other data acquisition equipment.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(b)(2) would apply to airplanes that were
equipped with a FDAU on [insert date of publication of NPRM] and
currently are required under Sec. 121.343 to record 17 parameters of
flight data. These airplanes would be required to record the parameters
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(22) by [insert date 4 years
from publication of the NPRM]. This installation would be required at
the next heavy maintenance check that occurs after 2 years from the
effective date of the final rule, but no later than [insert date 4
years after date of final rule]. Airplanes with FDAU's would be
required to record the parameters within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions and recording intervals specified in proposed Appendix M to
part 121. Proposed new Appendix M provides the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals for all parameters listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88). In some instances, the values for
certain parameters have been increased over those in current Appendix
B.
For all airplanes covered by proposed Sec. 121.344(b), the
parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(17) may be recorded
from a single source.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(c)(1) would require that as of [insert date 4
years after effective date of final rule], all turbine-engine powered
transport category airplanes that were manufactured on or before
October 11, 1991, and that were equipped with a digital data bus and an
ARINC 717 digital flight data acquisition unit (DFDAU) or its
equivalent on [insert publication date of NPRM], record the parameters
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(22). Paragraph (c)(1) would
also require that the parameters be recorded in accordance with the
specifications in proposed Appendix M. This paragraph would also permit
the parameters described in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(14) to be
recorded from a single source.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(c)(2) introduces the term ``recording
system'' which includes the DFDAU or equivalent and the DFDR. This
paragraph would require that, based on the capacity of the recording
system, all additional parameters (beyond those required by (c)(1)) for
which there is capacity on the recorder system must be recorded in the
order given in paragraph (a) and in accordance with the values listed
in Appendix M.
The term ``recording system'' was adopted to identify the
components in question so as not to require upgraded equipment on
airplanes retrofitted to meet the proposed requirements. Thus,
additional parameters need only be recorded when such parameters are
within the capacity of the flight data recordation system installed on
any airplane. That term is used again later in the regulation.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(c)(3) would require airplanes that were
subject to Sec. 121.343(e) to continue to meet the requirements of that
section until compliance with paragraph (c)(1) is accomplished.
Paragraph (c) brings forward and upgrades the requirements of
current Sec. 121.343(e). That section was originally adopted to require
airplanes that were capable of recording more than the minimum required
parameters to do so. At the time it was adopted, Sec. 121.343(e)
referenced the ARINC 717 DFDAU because it was the ``state of the art,''
and the capability of recording additional parameters existed. The
adoption of Sec. 121.343(e) reflected the FAA's growing awareness that
the information gained by recording additional FDR parameters was
important. Accordingly, Sec. 121.344(c) of the proposed rule requires
that airplanes subject to that section continue to record those
parameters that they are capable of recording, whether they are
equipped with an ARINC 717 or an equivalent DFDAU. When these airplanes
comply with proposed paragraph (c)(1), they would be recording the
parameters listed in (a)(1) through (a)(22), plus all additional
parameters they are capable of recording, and all of these must be
recorded in accordance with proposed new Appendix M. These provisions
are proposed to prevent a possible decrease in the number of parameters
already being recorded before the compliance date of the proposed
regulation.
Airplanes Manufactured After October 11, 1991
A significant portion of the work of the ARAC working group was
focused on the requirements for airplanes not yet built. Airplanes for
which no type certificate yet exists were seen as less of a problem. To
that end, discussions focused on the ability of manufacturers
[[Page 37152]]
to re-engineer airplanes that are already type certificated, and the
time needed to accomplish that engineering, get FAA approval of the
change in type design, and incorporate it into airplanes on the
production line. Significant discussion also occurred on the best way
to describe the airplanes that were to be covered by future
requirements. For example, a newer ``model'' of an airplane recently
type certificated might already be in the works, with a significant
investment in the engineering. Further, there is no standard industry
terminology for what the ``next version'' of an already certificated
airplane might be called. Finally, the number of parameters to be
recorded by these future airplanes was also part of the discussion, and
included consideration of flight data recorder requirements that will
be included in the operating rules of the Joint Aviation Authorities of
Europe (JAR-Ops).
The proposed regulation places airplanes manufactured after October
11, 1991, into three groups, with DFDR requirements increasing as age
decreases. These airplane groups and the requirements that apply to
each were the subject of considerable discussion within the ARAC
working group.
Because there was little agreement on the terminology to be used or
the time necessary to incorporate upgrades into future aircraft models
at the least cost, the requirements that would apply to future
production airplanes remained one of the most contentious issues in the
working group.
The FAA began discussions with the recommendations of the NTSB that
would require an upgrade to 88 parameters of recorded data for all
airplanes manufactured after 1998, regardless of the date of type
certification of models then in production. Representatives of airplane
manufacturers on the working group indicated that this was unrealistic
given the time needed to re-engineer airplanes in production, get FAA
approval of the design changes, and incorporate the modifications into
airplanes on the assembly line that had been on order, in some
instances, years before the requirements were written. The ARAC
industry members thus suggested an alternative requirement that would
apply to airplanes that receive a new or amended type certificate
beginning one year after the final rule becomes effective. This
alternative would mean that airplanes produced under a type certificate
that existed before that date might never be required to upgrade to 88
parameters, even if manufactured 10 years after the rule went into
effect, if the type design were not amended. The NTSB considers this
unacceptable, and describes it as a parallel to the current
circumstances where technological development and capability have far
outpaced current regulations. Further, the NTSF notes that a letter
requirement will in the future place the FAA and the industry in the
same circumstances that exist today in attempting to catch up with
available technology.
There was also considerable debate within the working group over
the recording equipment that might be necessary to record the 88
parameters of information proposed. Little hard data was available
concerning whether the current 128-word recorders would be able to
handle the 88-parameter requirement. Several members indicated that a
256-word recorder would likely be needed, and that since no such
recorder was currently available or approved for use, no regulation
that would require its use could be promulgated. Similarly, data were
available to indicate that while there was no 256-word recorder
currently available, the reason was that there was no current market
for it. Informal inquiries by the NTSB to equipment manufacturers
indicated that a 256-word recorder is well within the bounds of
currently available technology, and may well already exist.
Taking into account the NTSB concern that all new airplanes be able
to record the maximum number of parameters, balanced against the
knowledge that airplanes in production cannot be re-engineered without
sufficient lead time, the FAA has determined that FDR requirements for
future airplane production will be based on the date of manufacture,
but that the dates suggested by the NTSB cannot realistically be met
without incurring overwhelming costs and unacceptable delays in
production. Accordingly, the proposed rule would place the following
requirements on newly manufactured airplanes.
The first group of airplanes, addressed in proposed
Sec. 121.344(d)(1), are those manufactured after October 11, 1991, but
on or before [insert date three years from effective date, i.e. 2000]
to record the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(34),
and do so in accordance with Appendix M. Similar to the requirements
for older airplanes, the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12)
through (a)(14) could be recorded from a single source. Proposed
Sec. 121.344(d)(2) carries forward the requirements that all additional
parameters that are within the capacity of the recording system must
also be installed to take advantage of the latest advancements in
technology and the capabilities of individual airplanes. Because this
requirement will apply to airplanes recently produced, it is a retrofit
requirement, but the effect of the retrofit is softened by limiting the
requirement to the first 34 parameters.
The second group of airplanes, addressed in proposed
Sec. 121.344(e)(1), are those that will be manufactured after [insert
date three years from effective date, i.e. 1999], but on or before
[insert date five years from effective date, or 2001]. These airplanes
would be required to record the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(57), and to do so in accordance with Appendix M. Proposed
Sec. 121.344(e)(2) carries forward the requirements that all additional
parameters that are within the capacity of the recording system must
also be installed to take advantage of the latest advancements in
technology and the capabilities of individual airplanes.
This group of airplanes is considered to include the already
engineered versions of currently certificated airplanes, and any
airplane getting a new type certificate during this time period. The
three year time period was considered by several members of the working
group as sufficient lead time to incorporate the upgrades required. The
number of parameters was chosen based on the recommendations of the
NTSB and the 57 parameters that will be required to be recorded under
JAR-Ops, which will become effective in 1998.
The third group of airplanes, addressed in proposed
Sec. 121.344(f), are those that would be manufactured after [insert
date five years from effective date]. These airplanes would be required
to record the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88),
and to do so in accordance with Appendix M.
As indicated in the previous discussion, this requirement would
apply to all airplanes manufactured five years after the effective date
of the rule. The FAA agrees with the NTSB that it is not acceptable to
adopt a requirement that could allow airplanes with 57 parameters to be
produced indefinitely. The concept of ``manufactured after'' was
established in the FDR requirements of Sec. 121.343 and is being used
in other sections of this proposed rule. The ``manufactured after''
standard is viewed as being the most straightforward for the agency to
administer and for the industry to comply with. Further, during the
meetings of the ARAC working group, a lead time of five years was
consistently mentioned as the working standard for new airplane design.
[[Page 37153]]
The FAA did raise another alternative that would require all 88
parameters to be recorded on any airplane for which a new, amended, or
supplemental type certificate is applied for one year after the
effective date of the final rule. That proposal would have included, by
necessity, significant deviation authority for any changes to airplanes
that did not affect the operational or performance characteristics of
airplanes, or that did not provide sufficient opportunity to accomplish
the necessary modifications. That proposal was made after considerable
discussion regarding the lack of consistent terminology regarding new
airplane models. In designing the proposal, the FAA looked to its
experience in similar equipment upgrade requirements and concluded that
it would be necessary for the agency to retain exclusive discretion as
to what constituted enough of a change to an airplane design (by
amended or supplemental type certificate) to cause the FDR upgrade
requirements to apply, or for a deviation to be granted.
The FAA determined that, while that proposal had a sound regulatory
foundation and would be triggered by well-established events that would
not be the source of semantic debate, it would be unwieldy in practice
and would lead to considerable extra work and expenditures for the
agency and every future applicant for an amended or supplemental type
certificate.
The proposed requirement to record 88 parameters may require the
installation of the 256-word recorder described previously. The FAA is
unable to accept the argument that simply because a 256-word recorder
is not currently marketed or approved for installation in aircraft, it
would not be available by the time the proposed requirement would take
effect, five years after the effective date of a final rule. The FAA
has experience in proposing requirements for new technology. For
example, the technology for TCAS systems existed at the time the FAA
promulgated a requirement for the equipment, but it was not
commercially available in the format into which it eventually evolved.
In a similar sense, air carriers strongly urged the FAA to authorize
the use of predictive windshear technology in lieu of current reactive
technology despite the fact that the technology was only expected to be
available at some unspecified future date.
In this case, information available to the FAA and the NTSB
suggests that the 256-word recorder that may be needed to record 88
parameters is close to being a reality, since the technology already
exists. The FAA and NTSB expect the 256-word recorder to be
commercially available as soon as some commercial demand exists.
Neither the FAA nor NTSB can accept the argument of current
unavailability as a basis for not imposing a more stringent requirement
on future-production airplanes, and the FAA has received no evidence
indicating that this position is not realistic. The FAA specifically
requests comment on this issue concerning the probable availability of
such equipment.
Except for paragraphs (j) and (l), the balance of proposed
Sec. 121.344 carries forward the rest of the requirements of
Sec. 121.343.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(g) would duplicate current Sec. 121.343(g),
which requires an FDR's continuous operation from the time of an
airplane's takeoff roll to its landing roll, except for a minor,
nonsubstantive editorial change.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(h) would duplicate Sec. 121.343(h), which
addresses the number of hours of recorded data that needs to be kept,
and erasures of that data, except for minor, nonsubstantive editorial
changes.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(i) would duplicate current Sec. 121.343(i),
which addresses requirements pursuant to flight data in the event of an
accident or occurrence that requires immediate notification of the
NTSB, except for minor, nonsubstantive editorial changes.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(j) addresses the equipment installation and
correlation requirements of 14 CFR part 25 for transport category
airplanes. This paragraph was rewritten to reflect current technology
and the need for correlation data retention. No significant change in
the duty of air carriers to retain this data is intended by this update
of this regulation.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(k) would duplicate current Sec. 121.343(k),
which requires an approved device to locate a flight data recorder
under water, except for minor, nonsubstantive editorial changes.
Proposed Sec. 121.344(l) would identify those airplanes to which
these proposals would not apply.
Paragraph (l)(1) addresses Stage 2 airplanes that are scheduled to
be retired under the noise transition regulations of Part 91. These
airplanes would not have to be retrofitted with upgraded DFDR's prior
to December 31, 1999. However, no Stage 2 airplane would be allowed to
be operated after December 31, 1999, unless it meets the upgraded FDR
requirements. Although the noise transition regulations allow for the
possibility that some Stage 2 airplanes would be allowed to operate
under certain limited waivers, the intent behind the noise operating
rules differs significantly from the intent behind the FDR
requirements. Accordingly, the FAA is not willing to allow the
continued operation of these airplanes with 11-parameter recorders
beyond the final noise compliance date regardless of an airplane's
noise operating status, and the agency will not put itself in a
position of having to forgo the safety considerations behind FDR
upgrades as an economic matter if a change in circumstances causes a
change in the noise operating rules whether by waiver or a change in
the regulations. Noise waivers are not a certainty, and operators have
been warned not to presume that they will be granted as a matter of
course and to plan for full compliance. No such waiver is included in
these proposed FDR requirements; the FAA views the grant of any such
FDR waiver as encouraging operators to gamble on the availability of
noise waivers as an excuse not to install upgraded flight data
recorders, undermining the intent of both the noise transition and FDR
upgrade rules.
Paragraph (l)(2) lists those airplanes that are out of production.
After considering analysis of data presented by aircraft operators and
manufacturers, the ARAC working group determined that the remaining
economic life of these airplanes is insufficient to justify the cost
associated with extensive DFDR retrofit. Further, the number of these
airplanes in operation is sufficiently small and is declining, such
that any safety return from expanded FDR's would be minimal. The FAA
agrees in the selection of the aircraft types listed. The FAA also
specifically requests that commenters submit other aircraft types, if
any, that should be included in this list. Submissions for inclusion
should include a detailed explanation of the reasons wh
FR Doc. 96-17824 Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
y these aircraft
should be included on the list, and the number of aircraft that would
be affected.
Specific Comments Concerning Proposed Sec. 121.344
A significant comment was submitted through the ARAC Executive
Committee from Trans World Airlines (TWA), which did not have a
separate representative on the working group. In general, TWA expressed
difficulty with the proposed requirements for certain of its older
airplanes, the Lockheed L-1011 and the Boeing 747-100. TWA indicates
that, to meet the requirements of the proposed rule, it would have to
replace recording equipment in more than a third of its airplanes, and
one of the premises of the working group was that significant equipment
replacement would not be required for older
[[Page 37154]]
airplanes. To that end, TWA recommended several specific changes to the
proposed rule language and Appendix values that would allow its Loral
F800 flight data recorders to continue to be used.
The existence of older recording systems, including the Loral F800,
was the subject of considerable discussion at the working group
meetings. In an attempt to accommodate some of this older equipment,
for example, Sec. 121.344(b)(1)(i) was added to not require the
recordation of lateral acceleration on airplanes with more than two
engines unless recording that parameter could be accommodated on
installed equipment. That provision was added to accommodate the Loral
F800 recorder installed on the L-1011. The FAA is concerned that
broader changes to the proposed rule--including revisions to the values
in current Appendix B and a new category of aircraft that would change
the established manufacturing-date groups--would weaken the intent of
the rule by allowing loopholes and exceptions that would be almost
impossible to track, and would result in an unmanageable number of
different recording capabilities within the part 121 fleet. The FAA
will not promulgate rules to accommodate one or two older pieces of
equipment, especially when the intent of the rule is to upgrade
equipment in airplanes that remain viable portions of the fleet.
However, the FAA is willing to make what accommodations are within
the spirit of the rulemaking, as in the example cited above, where such
accommodation does not change the effect of the rule in general on the
rest of the fleet. Accordingly, while the agency will not consider
changes to existing rules that are a step back from current
requirements, TWA, and other operators that may find themselves in
unique circumstances because of equipment configurations, are urged to
comment specifically on provisions that they feel they will not be able
to meet without undue burden, and to suggest limited provisions such as
the one cited that may alleviate some of that burden.
A U.S. aircraft manufacturer commented through the ARAC Executive
Committee that to record parameters (a)(58) through (a)(88) would
``require the installation of sensors [that have] a poor reliability
history.'' The NTSB agrees that there is a question as to the
reliability of control force sensors over the full range of forces, but
it is this very unreliability of the current generation of sensors for
control forces that has caused the NTSB to recomment that 88 parameters
be recorded. The FAA requests comment from manufacturers and operators
as to the current reliability rates for control force sensors, and what
plans may exist for increasing their reliability before they would be
required in five years.
Airplanes With 10-19 Passenger Seats
The February 1995 recommendations of the NTSB did not specifically
address airplanes that carry 10-19 passengers. However, the adoption of
new operating rules for certain airplanes formerly operated under part
135 has led to a need for the FAA to address FDR requirements for these
airplanes. Since these airplanes will, in scheduled service, be
operated under part 121, the FAA has determined that the FDR
requirements that would apply to these airplanes are best provided in a
separate section. Accordingly, the FAA is proposing the adoption of a
new Sec. 121.344a, to separate these requirements from those applicable
to transport category airplanes and prevent confusion as to
applicability and compliance times.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(a) would require all turbine-engine powered
airplanes having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any
required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats that were brought onto the
U.S. register after October 11, 1991, to be equipped with a DFDR that
is capable of recording, at a minimum, the parameters required in
Sec. 135.152. This provision would carry over the current requirements
of part 135 until the upgraded standard in the proposed rule is met.
By [4 years from the effective date of the final rule], those
airplanes would be required to be equipped with a DFDR that is capable
of recording the parameters listed in Sec. 121.344 (a)(1) through
(a)(11). In addition, these airplanes must record either three
additional parameters of control input or control surface position. If
capable of being recorded, these airplanes must also record the
parameters described in Sec. 121.344 (a)(19) through (a)(22).
As stated in the proposed rule language, parameter (a)(18) would
not be required for airplanes with more than two engines, unless
sufficient capacity is available on the existing recorder. Further, the
parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(17) would be
permitted to be recorded from a single source. All of the parameters
would be required to be recorded in accordance with the values listed
in Appendix B to part 135, the standard in the current rule, unless the
parameter to be recorded has no value indicated in that appendix. In
that case, the values in Appendix B to part 121 would be used.
Consistent with current regulation, airplanes with 10 to 19
passenger seats that were brought onto the U.S. register on or before
October 11, 1991, would not be required to comply with this regulation.
The FAA has determined that the cost of retrofitting this fleet of
airplanes would be substantial.
However, the FAA is concerned that all airplanes used in air
carrier operations be equipped with FDR equipment. Accordingly, the FAA
has determined that the already established date for installation of
FDR equipment--airplanes brought onto the U.S. register after October
11, 1991--will remain the standard for FDR installation if these
airplanes are operated under part 121.
Further, the FAA emphasizes that, consistent with current
regulation, airplanes that may have been on the register on or before
October 11, 1991, but were removed from the U.S. register, and brought
back onto the U.S. register after October 11, 1991, would be required
under this proposed rule to have a DFDR capable of recording the
required 18 to 22 parameters. There has been at least one previous
policy determination made concerning airplanes that have been removed
from the U.S. register after 1991 and then brought back; that policy
stated that compliance with the FDR rules of part 135 is not necessary
because the airplane was on the register before October 11, 1991. After
further consideration, however, the FAA has determined that this policy
is inconsistent with the language of the regulation itself and with the
intent of the recently adopted rules bringing part 135 scheduled
commuters under part 121. Airplanes that have been operated without
FDR's based on this policy determination will have to be retrofitted
with the FDR equipment required under Sec. 121.344a(a) by the
compliance date proposed in that paragraph, as they would have if they
remained under part 135.
Although the basic requirements for 10-19 seat airplanes are not
identical to those for transport category airplanes in Sec. 121.344, it
was determined that some differences could exist without compromising
safety. These airplanes currently are required to record 17 parameters
of information under part 135.152; the 18 parameters to be recorded
under the proposed rule differ slightly and will require that some
FDR's be reprogrammed. The FAA found, however, that requiring an
increase to the first 23 parameters would result in substantial costs.
Since the NTSB recommendations do not
[[Page 37155]]
address these airplanes or any specific upgrade for their flight data
recorders, a determination has been made that recordation of the first
18 parameters--or 22 where capable--is sufficient for this class of
airplanes.
The ARAC Executive Committee submitted a comment from a member
indicating that the applicability of proposed Sec. 121.344a(a) should
be changed to airplanes that were manufactured after October 11, 1991,
rather than airplanes brought onto the U.S. register after that date.
The FAA disagrees. This distinction by date of registration was
maintained as established in part 135, and the use of the registration
date has resulted in a specific set of airplanes to which these rules
apply. A change in the applicability of the regulation now could cause
airplanes that were previously required to have DFDR's to no longer
need them, with the consequences of recorders being removed from in-
service airplanes. A change in applicability under part 121 would also
have the confusing effect of establishing different applicability
provisions for the same airplanes, depending on the part under which
they are operated. The FAA will not introduce such complication into
the regulations nor promulgate a rule that would reduce the number of
airplanes required to have DFDR's.
Another comment stated that the FAA is proposing to cover 10-19
seat airplanes operated under part 121 ``with no technical support * *
* for their inclusion.'' The commenter suggests that the FAA ``abide by
the NTSB recommendation and remove these'' airplanes from the proposed
rule.
As stated previously, the NTSB recommendation was considered the
starting point for this rulemaking action. The NTSB recommendation did
not include consideration of the FAA's proposal to bring smaller
aircraft operated in scheduled service under part 135 into part 121, so
no recommendation for DFDR requirements on those airplanes could have
been included. However, as part of the FAA's goal of regulating all
scheduled operators under a single part, it would be inconsistent not
to propose that all airplanes operated in part 121 service be covered
by the same or comparable requirements. It is up to the FAA to
determine the proper scope and consistency of its regulations, and the
agency cannot be constrained by a recommendation of the NTSB that did
not consider other ongoing agency actions and initiatives. The NTSB did
not state that these airplanes not be covered--it simply never
addressed them. Further, it is not clear what the commenter means as to
the existence of ``technical support'' for a proposal that is but one
part of an overall agency safety initiative.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(b) would require recorders on all turbine-
engine powered airplanes having a passenger seating configuration,
excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that are
manufactured after [insert date 3 yrs after effective date of final
rule], to record the parameters listed in Sec. 121.344 (a)(1) through
(a)(57), as well as all additional parameters that are within the
capacity of the recording system within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix M to part
121.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(c) would require recorders on all turbine-
engine powered airplanes having a passenger seating configuration,
excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that are
manufactured after [insert date 5 yrs after effective date of final
rule], to record the parameters listed in Sec. 121.344 (a)(1) through
(a)(88), within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording
intervals specified in Appendix M to part 121. This is the same
requirement that would apply to transport category airplanes as
proposed in Sec. 121.344, and the same reasons for its adoption
applies.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(d) would bring forward the appropriate
references in current Sec. 135.152(f), pursuant to airplanes only,
which includes requirements for installation of flight recorders and
correlation of flight data. Rotorcraft requirements would remain in
Sec. 135.152(f); they are not being addressed in this rulemaking.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(e) would require all airplanes subject to
this section to also comply with paragraphs (g)-(k) of Sec. 121.344.
Proposed Sec. 121.344a(f) would identify those airplanes to which
these proposals would not apply. Included are airplanes that are no
longer in production. After considering analysis of data presented by
aircraft operators and manufacturers, the ARAC working group determined
that the remaining economic life of these airplanes is insufficient to
justify the cost associated with extensive DFDR retrofit. Further, the
number of these airplanes in operation is sufficiently small that any
safety return from expanded FDR's would be minimal. The FAA agrees in
the selection of the aircraft types listed. The FAA also specifically
requests that commenters submit other aircraft types, if any, that
should be included in this list. Submissions for inclusion should
include a detailed explanation of the reasons why these aircraft should
be included on the list, and the number of aircraft that would be
affected.
New Appendix
Proposed Appendix M: This new appendix would correspond directly to
the parameter list set forth in Sec. 121.344(a), and would present the
ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals for each
parameter. Values for these items were determined based on the capacity
of current equipment and take into consideration the European
standards. Where possible, the standards in Appendix M are the same as
those in the European requirements.
Specific Comments Concerning Proposed Appendix M
Several specific changes to Appendix M were submitted in the
comments from the ARAC Executive Committee. The addition of TSO C51a to
the Accuracy column of the Pressure Altitude parameter was reviewed and
accepted. One comment stated that the Heading parameter, which would
require a true/mag discrete is unclear and that the two should be
separated. A significant amount of time was expended in working group
discussions on this topic, and the designation as it appears in the
proposed Appendix was agreed to by working group members. A comment
concerning Manual radio transmitter keying states that existing
installations should only require a single discrete. That is all that
is required, and only for air traffic communications. A further comment
that language should be added to exclude digital voice and data
transmissions is not being addressed because there is no requirement
that digital data link transmissions be included as part of this
parameter.
Part 125
The FAA proposes to add a new Sec. 125.226 to require the existing
airplane fleet operated under part 125 to be retrofitted with FDR's
that record additional parameters. Requirements for DFDR's on newer
airplanes and newly manufactured airplanes would also be revised to
require that additional parameters be recorded. The preceding
discussion for the proposed amendments to part 121 also applies to
aircraft operated under part 125. The text in Sec. 125.225 would remain
unchanged because airplanes excluded from these proposed amendments
would be required to continue to comply with that section.
Proposed Appendix E: This new appendix to part 125 would be
identical
[[Page 37156]]
to the proposed Appendix M to part 121 above.
Part 129
The FAA proposes to add a new Sec. 129.20, Digital Flight Data
Recorders, to address flight data recorder regulations for U.S.-
registered airplanes operated outside the United States. Although the
NTSB recommendations did not apply to part 129 operators, the FAA has
determined that U.S.-registered airplanes, regardless of where they are
operated, should be required to comply with the same FDR requirements
as though they were operated domestically. Accordingly, the proposed
rule indicates that, depending on the airplane type, airplanes that are
U.S.-registered but operated outside the United States must comply with
the applicable flight data recorder regulations of part 121, 125, or
135. Descriptions of these requirements can be found above in the
sections describing the proposed amendments to those parts.
Consequently, the FAA proposes to revise the applicability of
Sec. 129.1(b) to include reference to the proposed Sec. 129.20.
The period for public comment to the proposed part 129 amendment is
no longer than that provided for the other proposals in this NPRM to
allow sufficient time for international entities to comment. Therefore,
the comment period for revisions to part 129 will be 120 days from the
date of publication of the NPRM, and the final rule for any revisions
to part 129 will be issued separately, although the compliance time
adopted may be the same as that proposed for parts 121, 125, and 135.
Part 135
These proposed flight data recorder amendments would apply to
turbine-engine-powered airplanes having a passenger seating
configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30
seats, that are manufactured after [insert date 3 years after effective
date of final rule] and operated under part 135. These requirements are
being proposed to parallel the requirements for the same airplanes
operated under part 121. These amendments would not apply to any
airplane type certificated to be configured with nine or fewer
passenger seats or any rotorcraft.
Proposed Sec. 135.152(f)(1) would retain the requirement from
current Sec. 135.152(f). A new Sec. 135.152(f)(2) is proposed that
would update the correlation data requirements for newly manufactured
airplanes.
Proposed new Sec. 135.152(h) would list the parameters that apply
to newly manufactured airplanes. This list is identical to the
parameter list proposed in Sec. 121.344.
Proposed Sec. 135.152(i) would require all turbine-engine powered
airplanes that are manufactured after [insert date three years after
effective date of final rule] to record the parameters listed in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(57) of this part, as well as any
additional parameters capable of being recorded on the installed FDR
equipment, in accordance with proposed Appendix F to part 135.
Proposed Sec. 135.152(j) would require all turbine-engine powered
airplanes that are manufactured after [insert date 5 yrs after
effective date of final rule], to record the parameters listed in
paragraph (h)(1) through (88) of this section within the ranges,
accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix
F. This provision is identical as proposed in Sec. 121.344a(c), since
it would apply to the same airplanes, and the same reasons for its
adoption applies.
Proposed Appendix F: This new appendix would correspond directly to
the parameter list set forth in Sec. 135.152(h), and would present the
ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals for each
parameter. This proposed appendix is identical to proposed Appendix M
to part 121.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[[Page 37157]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JY96.000
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 37158]]
International Compatibility
The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation
Organization regulations and Joint Aviation Authority regulations,
where they exist. Any differences between those documents and these
regulations are of a minor, technical nature, and are deemed
insignificant. They would not adversely affect harmonization.
Paperwork Reduction Act
No information collection is required by this proposed rule.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. A regulatory
evaluation of the proposal is in the docket.
Costs
To obtain representative and comprehensive information from which
to develop the industry costs of this proposed rule, the FAA relied on
the responses of ATA and RAA members to an air carrier cost survey
developed by the ARAC working group. (The FAA augmented this
information with adjusted costs analysis from the recently approved
commuter rule.) The principle aggregate cost detailed in the cost
survey were (1) equipment and inventory/spares; (2) engineering,
installation, and other costs, inclusive of recurrent maintenance
costs; and (3) aircraft out-of-service costs which reflect revenue
losses resulting from unscheduled aircraft downtime.
The total turbojet fleet costs for air carriers operating under
part 121 for the projected retrofits are $472.0 million ($420.4
million, discounted) if required to be done within a 2-year compliance
time frame. For a 4-year compliance time frame, the FAA estimates the
costs would be $308.9 million ($259.1 million, discounted). The
equivalent total turboprop fleet costs for air carriers operating under
part 121 are $39.0 million ($35.2 million, discounted) for the 2-year
compliance time frame, and $30.4 million ($25.8 million, discounted)
for the 4-year compliance time frame. The total 4-year compliance time
frame costs for part 135, 10-19 seat aircraft required to now operate
under part 121 are estimated to be $26.4 million ($22.3 million,
discounted) and for part 135, 20-30 seat aircraft, $10.9 million ($9.2
million, discounted), or $37.3 million ($31.5 million, discounted)
total part 135 costs. Thus, the total 4-year compliance time frame
discounted costs for the proposed retrofits required under this
proposed rule are $316.3 million.
With regard to the total turbojet fleet costs for air carriers
operating under part 121, nearly one-half the total cost for the 2-year
alternative represents the out-of-service costs or lost revenues that
would be imposed by the shorter compliance time requirement. The other
one-half of the total cost represents the basic costs which include
capital investment and expenses. In the 4-year time frame, just over 20
percent of the total cost represents the out-of-service costs or lost
revenues that would be imposed by this compliance time requirement. No
similar assessment can be made for either the turboprop fleet or part
135 carriers that will now be required to operate under part 121.
However, because the total turbojet fleet costs represent over 80
percent of the air carrier industry cost analyzed for this proposed
rule, the two year time frame suggests itself to clearly be a more
costly option than the four year time frame. The FAA's estimates of out
of service costs by aircraft type are summarized in the appendix to the
full Regulatory Evaluation. That document is available for review in
the regulatory docket.
Benefits
DFDR's do not in and of themselves prevent accidents; they are used
as an investigative tool when accidents or incidents occur. From the
DFDR information, a greater understanding of the dynamics and probable
causes of accidents and incidents can be obtained. With this knowledge,
a ``fix'' can be made to reduce the chance of a similar occurrence in
the future.
Due to the very nature of the DFDR requirements (i.e., that we
currently do not know how or why certain accidents occur), the FAA is
not able to quantify the likely benefits that will ultimately result
from this proposal. Nevertheless, the FAA has determined, particularly
in light of the NTSB recommendations, that information concerning
enhanced parameters can be collected cost-effectively. The FAA will be
able to use incident information to reduce accidents of the nature that
are currently of undetermined cause.
Benefit Cost Comparison
The FAA cautions that the cost analysis detailed in the preceding
sections is not necessarily exhaustive. The purpose of this rulemaking
is to require the installation of DFDR's that provide more flight
information about aviation accidents or incidents. This in turn, would
allow industry to predict certain trends in order to make the necessary
modifications prior to future accidents or incidents. Thus, it is
assumed that as a result of this rulemaking the quantity and quality of
information is increased about those accidents for which the NTSB
currently cannot determine the probable cause. To the extent that this
occurs, then the FAA would take appropriate additional action to
prevent a recurrence of those kinds of accidents.
Future FAA actions could take the form of Advisory Circulars,
Airworthiness Directives, or possibly, additional rulemakings. The
costs of these follow-on FAA actions could vary from negligible costs
to considerable costs of some unknown amount. The costs of such future
follow-on actions by the FAA should be taken into consideration as part
of the costs of this rulemaking. However, the costs of potential future
actions have not been included because the costs of such follow-on
actions cannot be estimated. It should be understood, therefore, that,
to the extent that the cost of the follow-on actions are more than
negligible, the current costs estimates would tend to underestimate the
total cost of this rulemaking.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires
regulatory agencies to review rules which may have ``a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' For this
proposed rulemaking, a ``small entity'' is an operator of aircraft for
hire owning, but not necessarily operating, nine (9) aircraft or less.
A ``substantial number of small entities'', as defined in FAA order
2100.14A-Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, is a number (in
this instance, the number of operators) which is not less than eleven
and is more then one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed
or existing rule.
A ``significant economic impact'' or cost threshold, is defined as
an annualized net compliance cost level
[[Page 37159]]
that exceeds 1) $119,900 (1994 dollars) in the case of scheduled
operators of aircraft for hire whose entire fleet has a seating
capacity in excess of 60 seats; 2) $67,000 (1994 dollars) in the case
of scheduled operators of aircraft for hire for which the entire fleet
has a seating capacity less than or equal to 60 seats; and 3) $4,800
(1994 dollars) in the case of unscheduled operators of aircraft for
hire.
The FAA has determined the annualized costs (20 years) for
scheduled operators of large aircraft to be $9,128 per aircraft for the
2-year time frame and $5,611 per aircraft for the 4-year time frame.
Multiplying each of these estimates by 9, (the upper bound of the small
entity criteria) yields results of $82,155 and $50,501 for the 2-year
and 4-year time frames, respectively. Each of these estimates is
significantly below the minimum compliance cost criteria of $119,900
for scheduled operators of large aircraft.
The FAA has also determined the annualized costs (20 years) for
scheduled operators of small aircraft to be $4,378 per aircraft for the
2-year time frame and $3,067 per aircraft for the 4-year time frame.
The upper bound costs for consideration within the small entity (9
aircraft) criteria are $39,398 for the 2-year time frame and $27,603
for the 4-year time frame, respectively. Both are well below the
minimum compliance cost of $67,000.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The FAA has determined that revisions to digital flight data
recorder rules could have a significant impact on international trade.
The FAA is of the opinion that while the proposed rule will not effect
non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the United
States, it could have a significant impact on the suppliers of
materials required for retrofitting the affected aircraft in the
domestic fleet. Domestic sources of the required retrofit products may
not be able to meet the increased demand of the domestic air carriers
for DFDR's as these air carriers increased orders to meet the tight
compliance time-frame imposed by this proposed rule. Foreign producers
may benefit by supplying the unfilled orders. The FAA welcomes comments
on this issue from manufacturers and suppliers of the proposed retrofit
materials as well as other interested parties.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation would be a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, and is considered significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation
14 CFR Part 125
Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
14 CFR Part 129
Air carriers, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
14 CFR Part 135
Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR parts 121, 125, 129, and 135 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
2. Section 121.344 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.344 Digital flight data recorders for transport category
airplanes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, no person
may operate under this part a turbine-engine-powered transport category
airplane unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight
recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a
method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The
operational parameters required to be recorded by digital flight data
recorders required by this section are as follows; the phrase ``when an
information source is installed'' following a parameter indicates that
recording of that parameter is not intended to require a change in
installed equipment:
(1) Time;
(2) Pressure altitude;
(3) Indicated airspeed;
(4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record
discrete, true or magnetic);
(5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
(6) Pitch attitude;
(7) Roll attitude;
(8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization
reference;
(9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
(10) Autopilot engagement status;
(11) Longitudinal acceleration;
(12) Pitch control input;
(13) Lateral control input;
(14) Rudder pedal input;
(15) Primary pitch control surface position;
(16) Primary lateral control surface position;
(17) Primary yaw control surface position;
(18) Lateral acceleration;
(19) Pitch trim surface position or the parameters of paragraph
(a)(82) of this section, if currently recorded;
(20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);
(21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);
(22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller
airplane);
(23) Ground spoiler position or speed brake selection (except when
the parameters of paragraph (a)(87) of this section apply);
(24) Outside or total air temperature;
(25) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) modes and engagement
status, including autothrottle;
(26) Radio altitude (when an information source is installed);
(27) Localizer deviation, MLS Azimuth;
(28) Glideslope deviation, MLS Elevation;
(29) Marker beacon passage;
(30) Master warning;
(31) Air/ground sensor (primary airplane system reference nose or
main gear);
(32) Angle of attack (when information source is installed);
(33) Hydraulic pressure low (each system);
(34) Ground speed (when an information source is installed);
(35) Ground proximity warning system;
(36) Landing gear position or landing gear cockpit control
selection;
(37) Drift angle (when an information source is installed);
(38) Wind speed and direction (when an information source is
installed);
[[Page 37160]]
(39) Latitude and longitude (when an information source is
installed);
(40) Stick shaker/pusher (when an information source is installed);
(41) Windshear (when an information source is installed);
(42) Throttle/power lever position;
(43) Additional engine parameters (as designated in appendix M of
this part);
(44) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system;
(45) DME 1 and 2 distances;
(46) Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency;
(47) Selected barometric setting (when an information source is
installed);
(48) Selected altitude (when an information source is installed);
(49) Selected speed (when an information source is installed);
(50) Selected mach (when an information source is installed);
(51) Selected vertical speed (when an information source is
installed);
(52) Selected heading (when an information source is installed);
(53) Selected flight path (when an information source is
installed);
(54) Selected decision height (when an information source is
installed);
(55) EFIS display format;
(56) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format;
(57) Thrust command (when an information source is installed);
(58) Thrust target (when an information source is installed);
(59) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank (when an information source is
installed);
(60) Primary Navigation System Reference;
(61) Icing (when an information source is installed);
(62) Engine warning each engine vibration (when an information
source is installed);
(63) Engine warning each engine over temp. (when an information
source is installed);
(64) Engine warning each engine oil pressure low (when an
information source is installed);
(65) Engine warning each engine over speed (when an information
source is installed);
(66) Yaw trim surface position;
(67) Roll trim surface position;
(68) Brake pressure (selected system);
(69) Brake pedal application (left and right);
(70) Yaw or sideslip angle (when an information source is
installed);
(71) Engine bleed value position (when an information source is
installed);
(72) De-icing or anti-icing system selected (when an information
source is installed);
(73) Computed center of gravity (when an information source is
installed);
(74) AC electrical bus status;
(75) DC electrical bus status;
(76) APU bleed valve position (when an information source is
installed);
(77) Hydraulic pressure (each system);
(78) Loss of cabin pressure;
(79) Computer failure;
(80) Heads-up display (when an information source is installed);
(81) Para-visual display (when an information source is installed);
(82) Cockpit trim control input position--pitch;
(83) Cockpit trim control input position--roll;
(84) Cockpit trim control input position--yaw;
(85) Trailing edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(86) Leading edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(87) Ground spoiler position and speed brake selection; and
(88) All cockpit flight control input forces (control wheel,
control column, rudder pedal).
(b) For all turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes
manufactured on or before October 11, 1991, by [four years from
effective date of final rule]--
(1) For airplanes not equipped as of July 15, 1996 with a flight
data acquisition unit (FDAU), the parameters listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(18) of this section must be recorded within the
ranges and accuracies specified in Appendix B of this part, and--
(i) For airplanes with more than two engines, the parameter
described in paragraph (a)(18) is not required unless sufficient
capacity is available on the existing recorder to record that
parameter;
(ii) Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(17) each
may be recorded from a single source.
(2) For airplanes that were equipped as July 16, 1996 with a flight
data acquisition unit (FDAU), the parameters listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(22) of this section must be recorded within the
ranges, accuracies, and recording intervals specified in appendix M of
this part. Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(17) each
may be recorded from a single source.
(3) The approved flight recorder required by this section must be
installed at the earliest time practicable, but no later than the next
heavy maintenance check after [two years after effective date of final
rule], and no later than [four years after the effective date of the
final rule]. A heavy maintenance check is considered to be any time an
airplane is scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days and is
scheduled to include access to major structural components.
(c) For all turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes
manufactured on or before October 11, 1991--
(1) That were equipped as of July 16, 1996 with one or more digital
data bus(es) and an ARINC 717 digital flight data acquisition unit
(DFDAU) or equivalent, the parameters specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(22) of this section must be recorded within the ranges,
accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified in appendix M
of this part by [4 years after effective date of the final rule].
Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(14) each may be
recorded from a single source.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system (DFDAU
or equivalent and the DFDR), all additional parameters for which
information sources are installed and which are connected to the
recording system, must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and sampling intervals specified in appendix M of this
part by [4 years after effective date of the final rule].
(3) That were subject to Sec. 121.343(e) of this part, all
conditions of Sec. 121.343(e) must continue to be met until compliance
with paragraph (c)(1) of this section is accomplished.
(d) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that were manufactured after October 11, 1991,--
(1) The parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(34) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix M of this
part by [4 years after the effective date of the final rule].
Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(14) each may be
recorded from a single source.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional parameters for which information sources are installed and
which are connected to the recording system, must be recorded within
the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified
in appendix M of this part by [4 years after effective date of the
final rule].
(e) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that are manufactured after [3 years after effective date of final
rule]--
(1) The parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (57) of this
section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions,
and recording intervals specified in appendix M of this part.
[[Page 37161]]
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional parameters for which information sources are installed and
which are connected to the recording system, must be recorded within
the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified
in appendix M of this part.
(f) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that are manufactured after [5 years after effective date of final
rule], the parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(88) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix M of this
part.
(g) Whenever a flight data recorder required by this section is
installed, it must be operated continuously from the instant the
airplane begins its takeoff roll until it has completed its landing
roll.
(h) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, and except
for recorded data erased as authorized in this paragraph, each
certificate holder shall keep the recorded data prescribed by this
section, as appropriate, until the airplane has been operated for at
least 25 hours of the operating time specified in Sec. 121.359(a) of
this part. A total of 1 hour of recorded data may be erased for the
purpose of testing the flight recorder or the flight recorder system.
Any erasure made in accordance with this paragraph must be of the
oldest recorded data accumulated at the time of testing. Except as
provided in paragraph (i) of this section, no record need be kept more
than 60 days.
(i) In the event of an accident or occurrence that requires
immediate notification of the National Transportation Safety Board
under 49 CFR part 830 of its regulations and the results in termination
of the flight, the certificate holder shall remove the recorder from
the airplane and keep the recorder data prescribed by this section, as
appropriate, for at least 60 days or for a longer period upon the
request of the Board or the Administrator.
(j) Each flight data recorder system required by this section must
be installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 25.1459 (a),
(b), (d), and (e) of this chapter. A correlation must be established
between the values recorded by the flight data recorder and the
corresponding values being measured. The correlation must contain a
sufficient number of correlation points to accurately establish the
conversion from the recorded values to engineering units or discrete
state over the full operating range of the parameter. Except for
airplanes having separate altitude and airspeed sensors that are an
integral part of the flight data recorder system, a single correlation
may be established for any group of airplanes--
(1) That are of the same type;
(2) On which the flight recorder system and its installation are
the same; and
(3) On which there is no difference in the type design with respect
to the installation of those sensors associated with the flight data
recorder system. Documentation sufficient to convert recorded data into
the engineering units and discrete values specified in the applicable
appendix must be maintained by the certificate holder.
(k) Each flight data recorder required by this section must have an
approved device to assist in locating that recorder under water.
(l) The following airplanes need not comply with this section, but
must continue to comply with applicable paragraphs of Sec. 121.343 of
this chapter, as appropriate:
(1) Airplanes that meet the Stage 2 noise levels of part 36 of this
chapter and are subject to Sec. 91.801(c) of this chapter, until
January 1, 2000. On and after January 1, 2000, any Stage 2 airplane
otherwise allowed to be operated under part 91 of this chapter must
comply with the applicable flight data recorder requirements of this
section for that airplane.
(2) General Dynamics Convair 580, General Dynamics Convair 600,
General Dynamics Convair 640, de Havilland Aircraft Company Ltd. DHC-7,
Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., FH 227, Fokker F-27 (except Mark 50), F-28
Mark 1000 and Mark 4000, Gulfstream Aerospace G-159, Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation Electra 10-A, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Electra 10-B,
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Electra 10-E, Maryland Air Industries,
Inc. F27, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. YS-11, Short Bros. Limited
SD3-30, Short Bros. Limited SD3-60.
3. Section 121.344a is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.344a Digital flight data recorders for 10-19 seat airplanes.
(a) No person may operate a turbine-engine-powered airplane having
a passenger seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember
seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that was brought onto the U.S. register after
October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved
flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing
data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage
medium. On or before [4 years after the effective data of the final
rule], airplanes brought onto the U.S. register after October 11, 1991,
must comply with either the requirements in this section or the
applicable paragraphs in Sec. 135.152 of this chapter. In addition, by
[4 years after the effective date of the final rule]--
(1) The parameters listed in Secs. 121.344(a)(1) through
121.344(a)(11) must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, and
resolutions specified in appendix B of part 135 of this chapter, except
that--
(i) Either the parameter listed in Sec. 121.344(a)(12) or (a)(15)
must be recorded; either the parameter listed in Sec. 121.344(a)(13) or
(a)(16) must be recorded; and either the parameter listed in
Sec. 121.344(a)(14) or (a)(17) must be recorded.
(ii) For airplanes with more than two engines, the parameter
described in Sec. 121.344(a)(18) must also be recorded if sufficient
capacity is available on the existing recorder to record that
parameter;
(iii) Parameters listed in Secs. 121.344(a)(12) through
121.344(a)(17) each may be recorded from a single source;
(iv) Any parameter for which no value is contained in appendix B of
part 135 of this chapter must be recorded within the ranges,
accuracies, and resolutions specified in appendix B of this part.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system (FDAU or
equivalent and the DFDR), the parameters listed in sections
121.344(a)(19) through 121.344(a)(22) also must be recorded within the
ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in
appendix B of part 135 of this chapter.
(3) The approved flight recorder by this section must be installed
as soon as practicable, but no later than the next heavy maintenance
check or equivalent after [two years after effective date of final
rule]. A heavy maintenance check is considered to be any time an
airplane is scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days and is
scheduled to include access to major structural components.
(b) For all turbine-engine-powered airplanes having a passenger
seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat of 10 to
19 seats, that are manufactured after [three years from effective date
of final rule]--
(1) The parameters listed in sections 121.344(a)(1) through
121.344(a)(57) must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix M of this
part.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional
[[Page 37162]]
parameters listed in section 121.344(a) for which information sources
are installed and which are connected to the recording system, must be
recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling
intervals specified in appendix M of this part by [4 years after
effective date of the final rule].
(c) For all turbine-engine-powered airplanes having a passenger
seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seats, of 10
to 19 seats, that are manufactured after [5 years after effective date
of final rule], the parameters listed in section 121.344(a)(1) through
(a)(88) must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions,
and recording intervals specified in appendix M of this part.
(d) Each flight data recorder system required by this section must
be installed in accordance with the requirements of section 23.1459
(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this chapter. A correlation must be
established between the values recorded by the flight data recorder and
the corresponding values being measured. The correlation must contain a
sufficient number of correlation points to accurately establish the
conversion from the recorded values to engineering units or discrete
state over the full operating range of the parameter. A single
correlation may be established for any group of airplanes--
(1) That are of the same type;
(2) On which the flight recorder system and its installation are
the same; and
(3) On which there is no difference in the type design with respect
to the installation of those sensors associated with the flight data
recorder system. Correlation documentation must be maintained by the
certificate holder.
(e) All airplanes subject to this section are also subject to the
requirements and exceptions stated in sections 121.344(g) through
121.344(k).
(f) The following airplane types need not comply with this section,
but must continue to comply with applicable paragraphs of section
135.152 of this chapter, as appropriate: Beech Aircraft--99 Series,
Beech Aircraft 1300, Beech Aircraft 1900C, Construcciones Aeronauticas,
S.A. (CASA) C-212, deHaviland DHC-6, Dornier 228, HS-748, Embraer EMB
110, Jetstream 3101, Jetstream 3201, Fairchild Aircraft SA-226.
4. Appendix M to part 121 is added to read as follows:
Appendix M to Part 121.--Airplane Flight Recorder Specification
[The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data recorded must
be correlated in time to within one second]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy (sensor Seconds per sampling
Parameters Range input) Interval Resolution Remarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Time or Relative Time counts... 24 Hrs, 0 to 4095.... +/-0.125% Per Hour... 4.................... 1 sec............... UTC time preferred when
available. Counter
increments each 4
seconds of system
operation.
2. Pressure Altitude.............. -1000 ft to max +/-100 to +/-700 ft 1.................... 5' to 35'........... Data should be obtained
certificated (see table, TSO from the air data
altitude of C124a or TSO C51a). computer when
aircraft. +5000 ft. practicable.
3. Indicated airspeed or 50 KIAS or minimum +/-5% and +/-3%...... 1.................... 1 kt................ Data should be obtained
Calibrated airspeed. value to Max Vso, from the air data
and Vso to 1.2 V.D. computer when
practicable.
4. Heading (Primary flight crew 0-360 deg. and +/-2 deg............. 1.................... 0.5 deg............. When true or magnetic
reference). Discrete ``true'' or heading can be selected
``mag''. as the primary heading
reference, a discrete
indicating selection
must be recorded.
5. Normal Acceleration (Vertical). -3g to +6g........... +/-1% of max range 0.125................ 0.01g.
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
6. Pitch Altitude................. +/-75 deg............ +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.25 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.25
airplanes operated is recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
7. Roll Altitude.................. +/-180 deg........... +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.5 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.5 is
airplanes operated recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
8. Manual Radio Transmitter Keying On-Off (Discrete).... ..................... 1.................... .................... Preferably each crew
or CVR/DFDR synchronization member but one discrete
reference. acceptable for all
transmission provided
the CVR/FDR system
complies with TSO C124a
CVR synchronization
requirements (paragraph
4.2.1 ED-55).
9. Thrust/Power on Each Engine-- Full Range Forward... +/-2%................ 1 (per engine)....... 0.2% of full range.. Sufficient parameters
primary flight crew reference. (e.g. EPR, N1 or Torque,
NP) as appropriate to
the particular engine be
recorded to determine
power in forward and
reverse thrust,
including potential
overspeed conditions.
10. Autopilot Engagement.......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1.
``off''.
[[Page 37163]]
11. Longitudinal Acceleration..... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g...............
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
12a. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-by-wire systems. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
12b. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range..
(fly-by-wire systems). Higher Accuracy, airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
13a. Lateral Control position(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
13b. Lateral Control positions(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range. .........................
(fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
14a. Yaw Control positions(s) (fly- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
by-wire). Higher Accuracy flight control break
Uniquely Required. away capability that
allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5.
14b. Yaw Control positions(s) (fly- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. .........................
by-wire). Higher Accuracy
Uniquely Required.
15. Pitch Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes fitted with
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated multiple or split
Uniquely Required. under Sec. surfaces, a suitable
121.344(f). combination of inputs is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
16. Lateral Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. A suitable combination of
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated surface position sensors
Uniquely Required. under Sec. is acceptble in lieu of
121.344(f). recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
17. Yaw Control Surface(s)........ Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes with
Higher Accuracy multiple or split
Uniquely Required. surfaces, a suitable
combination of surface
position sensors is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5.
18. Lateral Acceleration.......... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g. .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
19. Pitch Trim Surface Position... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 1.................... 0.3% of full range. .........................
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
[[Page 37164]]
20. Trailing Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Flap positin and cockpit
Control Selection. Position (discrete). Pilot's indicator. control may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals, to
give a data point every
2 seconds.
21. Leading Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Left and right sides, or
Control Selection. Discrete Position. Pilot's indicator flap position and
FR Doc. 96-17824 Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
and sufficient to cockpit control may each
determine each be sampled at 4 second
discrete position.. intervals, so as to give
a data point every 2
seconds.
22. Each Thurst Reverser Position Stowed, In Transit, ..................... 1 (per engine)....... .................... Turbo-jet--2 discretes
(or equivalent for propeller and Reverse enable the 3 states to
airplane). (Discrete). be determined, Turbo--
prop--1 discrete.
23. Ground Spoiler Position or Full Range or Each +/-2 deg. Unless 1 0.5 for airplanes 0.2% of full range.. .........................
Speed Brake Selection. Position (discrete). Higher Accuracy operated under Sec.
Uniquely Required. 121.344(f).
24. Outside Air Temperature or -50 deg.C to +90 +/-2 deg.C........... 2.................... 0.3 deg.C. .........................
Total Air Temperature. deg.C.
25. Autopilot/Autothrottle/AFCS A suitable ..................... 1.................... .................... Discretes should show
Mode and Engagement Status. combination of which systems are
discretes. engaged and which
primary modes are
controlling the flight
path and speed of the
aircraft.
26. Radio Altitude................ -20 ft to 2,500 ft... +/-2 ft or +/-3% 1.................... 1 ft + 5% above 500 For autoland/category 3
Whichever is Greater ft. operations each radio
Below 500 ft and +/- altimeter should be
5% Above 500 ft. recorded, but arranged
so that at least one is
recorded each second.
27. Localizer Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Azimuth. available sensor recommended. operations each system
range as installed, should be recorded but
+/-62 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
and MLS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need be
recorded.
28. Glideslope Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Elevation. available sensor recommended. operations each system
range as installed, should be recorded but
0.9 to + 30 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
and MLS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need be
recorded.
29. Marker Beacon Passage......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A single discrete is
``off''. acceptable for all
makers.
30. Master Warning................ Discrete............. ..................... 1.................... .................... Record the master warning
and record each `red'
warning that cannot be
determined from other
parameters or from the
cockpit voice recorder.
31. Air/ground sensor (primary Discrete ``air'' or ..................... 1 (0.25 recommended).
airplane system reference nose or ``ground''.
main gear).
32. Angle of Attack (If measured As installed......... As Installed......... 2 or 0.5 for 0.3% of full range.. If left and right sensors
directly). airplanes operated are available, each may
under Sec. be recorded at 4 second
121.344(f). intervals so as to give
a data point each half
second.
33. Hydraulic Pressure Low, Each Discrete or available +/-5%................ 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. .........................
System. sensor range,
``low''or ``normal''.
34. Groundspeed................... As Installed......... Most Accurate Systems 1.................... 0.2% of full range. .........................
Installed.
[[Page 37165]]
35. GPWS (ground proximity warning Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
system). or ``off''. discretes unless
recorder capacity is
limited in which case a
single discrete for all
modes is acceptable.
36. Landing Gear Position or Discrete............. ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Landing gear cockpit control discretes should be
selection. recorded.
37. Drift Angle................... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.1 deg.. .........................
38. Wind Speed and Direction...... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 1 knot, and 1.0
deg..
39. Latitude and Longitude........ As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.002 deg........... Provided by the Primary
Navigation System
Reference. Where
capacity permits
Latitude/longitude
resolution should be
0.0002 deg..
40. Stick shaker and pusher Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
activation. ``off''. discretes to determine
activation.
4l. Windshear Detection........... Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1
or ``off''.
42. Throttle/power lever position. Full Range........... +/-2%................ 1 for each lever..... 2% of full range.... For airplanes with non-
mechanically linked
cockpit engine controls.
43. Additional Engine Parameters.. As installed......... As installed......... Each engine each 2% of full range.... Where capacity permits,
second. the preferred priority
is indicated vibration
level, N2, EGT, Fuel
Flow, Fuel Cut-off lever
position and N3, unless
engine manufacturer
recommends otherwise.
44. Traffic Alert and Collision Discretes............ As installed......... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Avoidance System (TCAS). discretes should be
recorded to determine
the status of--Combined
Control, Vertical
Control, Up Advisory,
and Down Advisory. (ref.
ARINC Characteristic 735
Attachment 6E, TCAS
VERTICAL RA DATA OUTPUT
WORD.)
45. DME 1 and 2 Distance.......... 0-200 NM............. As installed......... 4.................... 1 NM................ 1 mile.
46. Nav 1 and 2 Selected Frequency Full range........... As installed......... 4.................... .................... Sufficient to determine
selected frequency.
47. Selected barometric setting... Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 0.2% of full range.
48. Selected Altitude............. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 100 ft.
49. Selected speed................ Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 knot.
50. Selected Mach................. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... .01.
51. Selected vertical speed....... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 100 ft/min.
52. Selected heading.............. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 deg..
53. Selected flight path.......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 deg..
54. Selected decision height...... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 64................... 1 ft.
55. EFIS display format........... Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... Discretes should show the
display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, composite, sector,
plan, nav aids, weather
radar, range, copy.
56. Multi-function/Engine Alerts Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... .................... Discretes should show the
Display format. display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, and the identity
of display pages for
emergency procedures,
need not be recorded.
57. Thrust command................ Full Range........... +/-2%................ 2.................... 2% of full range.
58. Thrust target................. Full Range........... +/-2%................ 4.................... 2% of full range.
59. Fuel quantity in CG trim tank. Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range.
[[Page 37166]]
60. Primary Navigation System Discrete GPS, INS, ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Reference. VOR/DME, MLS, Loran discretes to determine
C, Omega, Localizer the Primary Navigation
Glideslope. System reference.
61. Ice Detection................. Discrete ``ice'' or ..................... 4.
``no ice''.
62. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
vibration.
63. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
over temp.
64. Engine warning each engine oil Discrete............. ..................... 1.
pressure low.
65. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
over speed.
66. Yaw Trim Surface Position..... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range.
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
67. Roll Trim Surface Position.... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range.
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
68. Brake Pressure (left and As installed......... +/-5%................ 1.................... .................... To determine braking
right). effort applied by pilots
or by autobrakes.
69. Brake Pedal Application (left Discrete or Analog +/-5% (Analog)....... 1.................... .................... To determine braking
and right). ``applied'' or applied by pilots.
``off''.
70. Yaw or sideslip angle......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5 deg..
71. Engine bleed valve position... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4.
``closed''.
72. De-icing or anti-icing system Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 4.
selection. ``off''.
73. Computed center of gravity.... Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range....
74. AC electrical bus status...... Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
75. DC electrical bus status...... Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
76. APU bleed valve position...... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4.
``closed''.
77. Hydraulic Pressure (each Full range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 100 psi.
system).
78. Loss of cabin pressure........ Discrete ``loss'' or ..................... 1.
``normal''.
79. Computer failure (critical Discrete ``fail'' or ..................... 4.
flight and engine control ``normal''.
systems).
80. Heads-up display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 4. .........................
information source is installed). ``off''.
81. Para-visual display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1. .........................
information source is installed). ``off''.
82. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--pitch.
[[Page 37167]]
83. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--roll.
84. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--yaw.
85. Trailing edge flap and cockpit Full Range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Trailing edge flaps and
flap control position. cockpit flap control
position may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals to
provide a sample each
0.5 second.
86. Leading edge flap and cockpit Full Range or +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5% of full range.. .........................
flap control position. Discrete.
87. Ground spoiler position and Full Range or +/-5%................ 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. .........................
speed brake selection. Discrete.
88. All cockpit flight control Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. For fly-by-wire flight
input forces (control wheel, Control wheel........ +/-70 lbs............ control systems, where
control column, rudder pedal). Control Column....... +/-85 lbs............ flight control surface
Rudder pedal......... +/-165 lbs........... position is a function
of the displacement of
the control input device
only, it is not
necessary to record this
parameter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
5. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
6. Section 125.226 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 125.226 Digital flight recorders.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, no person
may operate under this part a turbine-engine-powered transport category
airplane unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight
recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a
method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The
operational parameters required to be recorded by digital flights data
recorders required by this section are as follows; the phrase ``when an
information source is installed'' following a parameter indicates that
recording of that parameters is not intended to require a change in
installed equipment:
(1) Time;
(2) Pressure altitude;
(3) Indicated airspeed;
(4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record
discrete, true or magnetic);
(5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
(6) Pitch attitude;
(7) Roll attitude;
(8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchorinization
reference;
(9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
(10) Autopilot engagement status:
(11) Longitudinal acceleration;
(12) Pitch control input;
(13) Lateral control input;
(14) Rudder pedal input;
(15) Primary pitch control surface position;
(16) Primary lateral control surface position;
(17) Primary yaw control surface position;
(18) Lateral acceleration;
(19) Pitch trim surface position or the parameters of paragraph
(a)(82) of this section, if currently recorded;
(20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);
(21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);
(22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller
airplane);
(23) Ground spoiler position or speed brake selection (except when
the parameters of paragraph (a)(87) of this section apply);
(24) Outside or total air temperature;
(25) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) modes and engagement
status, including autothrottle;
(26) Radio altitude (when an information source is installed);
(27) Localizer deviation, MLS Azimuth;
(28) Glideslope deviation, MLS Elevation;
(29) Maker beacon passage;
(30) Master warning;
(31) Air/ground sensor (primary airplane system reference nose or
main gear);
(32) Angle of attack (when information source is installed);
(33) Hydraulic pressure low (each system);
(34) Ground speed (when an information source is installed);
(35) Ground proximity warning system;
(36) Landing gear position or landing gear cockpit control
selection;
(37) Drift angle (when an information source is installed);
(38) Wind speed and direction (when an information source is
installed);
(39) Latitude and longitude (when an information source is
installed);
(40) Stick shaker/pusher (when an information source is installed);
(41) Windshear (when an information source is installed);
(42) Throttle/power lever position;
(43) Additional engine parameters (as designated in appendix E of
this part);
(44) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system;
[[Page 37168]]
(45) DME 1 and 2 distances;
(46) Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency;
(47) Selected barometric setting (when an information source is
installed);
(48) Selected altitude (when an information source is installed);
(49) Selected speed (when an information source is installed);
(50) Selected mach (when an information source is installed);
(51) Selected vertical speed (when an information source is
installed);
(52) Selected heading (when an information source is installed);
(53) Selected flight path (when an information source is
installed);
(54) Selected decision height (when an information source is
installed);
(55) EFIS display format;
(56) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format;
(57) Thrust command (when an information source is installed);
(58) Thrust target (when an information source is installed);
(59) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank (when an information source is
installed);
(60) Primary Navigation System Reference;
(61) Icing (when an information source is installed);
(62) Engine warning each engine vibration (when an information
source is installed);
(63) Engine warning each engine over temp. (when an information
source is installed);
(64) Engine warning each engine oil pressure low (when an
information source is installed);
(65) Engine warning each engine over speed (when an information
source is installed);
(66) Yaw trim surface position;
(67) Roll trim surface position;
(68) Brake pressure (selected system);
(69) Brake pedal application (left and right);
(70) Yaw or sideslip angle (when an information source is
installed);
(71) Engine bleed valve position (when an information source is
installed);
(72) De-icing or anti-icing system selection (when an information
source is installed);
(73) Computed center of gravity (when an information source is
installed);
(74) AC electrical bus status;
(75) DC electrical bus status;
(76) APU bleed valve position (when an information source is
installed);
(77) Hydraulic pressure (each system);
(78) Loss of cabin pressure;
(79) Computer failure;
(80) Heads-up display (when an information source is installed);
(81) Para-visual display (when an information source is installed);
(82) Cockpit trim control input position--pitch;
(83) Cockpit trim control input position--roll;
(84) Cockpit trim control input position--yaw;
(85) Trailing edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(86) Leading edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(87) Ground spoiler position and speed brake selection; and
(88) All cockpit flight control input forces (control wheel,
control column, rudder pedal).
(b) For all turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes
manufactured on or before October 11, 1991, by [four years from
effective date of final rule]--
(1) For airplanes not equipped as of July 15, 1996 with a flight
data acquisition unit (FDAU), the parameters listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(18) of this section must be recorded within the
ranges and accuracies specified in appendix D of this part, and--
(i) For airplanes with more than two engines, the parameter
described in paragraph (a)(18) is not required unless sufficient
capacity is available on the existing recorder to record that
parameter;
(ii) Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(17) each
may be recorded from a single source.
(2) For airlines that were equipped as of July 15, 1996 with a
flight data acquisition unit (FDAU), the parameters listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(22) of this section must be recorded
within the ranges, accuracies, and recording intervals specified in
appendix E of this part. Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12)
through (a)(17) each may be recorded from a single source.
(3) The approved flight recorder required by this section must be
installed at the earliest time practicable, but no later than the next
heavy maintenance check after [two years after effective date of final
rule], and no later than [four years after the effective date of the
final rule]. A heavy maintenance check is considered to be any time an
airplane is scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days and is
scheduled to include access to major structural components.
(c) For all turbine-engine powered transport category airplanes
manufactured on or before October 11, 1991--
(1) That were equipped as of July 15, 1996 with one or more digital
data bus(es) and an ARINC 717 digital flight data acquisition unit
(DFDAU) or equivalent, the parameters specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(22) of this section must be recorded within the ranges,
accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified in appendix E
of this part by [4 years after effective date of the final rule].
Parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(14) each may be
recorded from a single source.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system (DFDAU
or equivalent and the DFDR), all additional parameters for which
information sources are installed and which are connected to the
recording system, must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and sampling intervals specified in appendix E of this
part by [4 years after effective date of the final rule].
(3) That were subject to Sec. 125.225(e) of this part, all
conditions of Sec. 125.225(c) must continue to be met until compliance
with paragraph (c)(1) of this section is accomplished.
(d) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that were manufactured after October 11, 1991,--
(1) The parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(34) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix E of this
part by [4 years after effective date of the final rule]. Parameters
listed in paragraphs (a)(12) through (a)(14) each may be recorded from
a single source.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional parameters for which information sources are installed and
which are connected to the recording system, must be recorded within
the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified
in appendix E of this part by [4 years after effective date of the
final rule].
(e) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that are manufactured after [3 years after effective date of the final
rule]--
(1) The parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (57) of this
section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions,
and recording intervals specified in appendix E of this part.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional parameters for which information sources are installed and
which are connected to the recording system, must be recorded within
the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified
in appendix E of this part.
[[Page 37169]]
(f) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
that are manufactured after [5 years after effective date of final
rule], the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix E of this
part.
(g) Whenever a flight data recorder required by this section is
installed, it must be operated continuously from the instant the
airplane begins its takeoff roll until it has completed its landing
roll.
(h) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, and except
for recorded data erased as authorized in this paragraph, each
certificate holder shall keep the recorded data prescribed by this
section, as appropriate, until the airplane has been operated for at
least 25 hours of the operating time specified in Sec. 121.359(a) of
this part. A total of 1 hour of recorded data may be erased for the
purpose of testing the flight recorder or the flight recorder system.
Any erasure made in accordance with this paragraph must be of the
oldest recorded data accumulated at the time of testing. Except as
provided in paragraph (i) of this section, no record need be kept more
than 60 days.
(i) In the event of an accident or occurence that requires
immediate notification of the National Transportation Safety Board
under 49 CFR part 830 of its regulations and that results in
termination of the flight, the certificate holder shall remove the
recorder from the airplane and keep the recorder data prescribed by
this section, as appropriate, for at least 60 days or for a longer
period upon the request of the Board or the Administrator.
(j) Each flight data recorder system required by this section must
be installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 25.1459 (a),
(b), (d), and (e) of this chapter. A correlation must be established
between the values recorded by the flight data recorder and the
corresponding values being measured. The correlation must contain a
sufficient number of correlation points to accurately establish the
conversion from the recorded values to engineering units or discrete
state over the full operating range of the parameter. Except for
airplanes having separate altitude and airspeed sensors that are an
integral part of the flight data recorder system, a single correlation
may be established for any group of airplanes--
(1) That are of the same type;
(2) On which the flight recorder system and its installation are
the same; and
(3) On which there is no difference in the type design with respect
to the installation of those sensors associated with the flight data
recorder system. Documentation sufficient to convert recorded data into
the engineering units and discrete values specified in the applicable
appendix must be maintained by the certificate holder.
(k) Each flight data recorder required by this section must have an
approved device to assist in locating that recorder under water.
(l) The following airplanes need not comply with this section, but
must continue to comply with applicable paragraphs of Sec. 125.225 of
this chapter, as appropriate:
(1) Airplanes that meet the Stage 2 noise levels of part 36 of this
chapter and are subject to Sec. 91.801(c) of this chapter, until
January 1, 2000. On and after January 1, 2000, any Stage 2 airplane
otherwise allowed to be operated under part 91 of this chapter must
comply with the applicable flight data recorder requirements of this
section for that airplane.
(2) General Dynamics Convair 580, General Dynamics Convair 600,
General Dynamics Convair 640, de Havilland Aircraft Company Ltd. DHC-7,
Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., FH 227, Fokker F-27 (except Mark 50), F-28
Mark 1000 and Mark 4000, Gulfstream Aerospace G-159, Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation Electra 10-A, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Electra 10-B,
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Electra 10-E, Maryland Air Industries,
Inc. F27, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. YS-11, Short Bros. Limited
SD3-30, Short Bros. Limited SD3-60.
7. Appendix E to part 125 is added to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 125.--Airplane Flight Recorder Specification
[The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data recorded must
be correlated in time to within one second]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy (sensor Seconds per Sampling
Parameters Range input) Interval Resolution Remarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Time or Relative Time Courts... 24 Hrs 0 to 4095..... +/-0.125% Per Hour... 4.................... 1 sec............... UTC time preferred when
available. Counter
increments each 4
seconds of system
operation.
2. Pressure Altitude.............. -1000 ft to max 1/-100 to +/-700 ft 1.................... 5' to 35'........... Data should be obtained
certificated (see table, TSO from the air data
altitude of C124a or TSO C51A). computer when
aircraft.+5000 ft. practicable.
3. Indicated airspeed or 50 KIAS or minimum +/-5% and/-3%+....... 1.................... 1 kt................ Data should be obtained
Calibrated airspeed. value to Max VSO, from the air data
and VSO to 1.2 V.D. computer when
practicable.
4. Heading (Primary flight crew 0-360 deg. and +/-2 deg............. 1.................... 0.5 deg............. When true or magnetic
reference. Discrete ``true''or heading can be selected
``mag''. as the primary heading
reference, a discrete
indicating selection
must be recorded.
5. Normal Acceleration (Vertical). -3g to +6g........... +/-1% of max range 0.125................ 0.01g. .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
[[Page 37170]]
6. Pitch Attitude................. +/-75 deg............ +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.25 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.25
airplanes operated is recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
7. Roll Attitude.................. +/-180 deg........... +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.5 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.5 is
airplanes operated recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
8. Manual Radio Transmitter Keying On-Off (Discrete) ..................... 1.................... .................... Preferably each crew
or CVR/DFDR synchronization none. member but one discrete
reference. acceptable for all
transmission provided
the CVR/FDR system
complies with TSO C124a
CVR synchronization
requirements (paragraph
4.2.1 ED-55).
9. Thrust/Power on Each Engine-- Full Range Forward... +/-2%................ 1 (per engine)....... 0.2% of full range.. Sufficient parameters
Primary flight crew reference. (e.g. EPR, N1 or Torque,
NP) as appropriate to
the particular engine be
recorded to determine
power in forward and
reverse thrust,
including potential
overspeed conditions.
10. Autopilot Engagement.......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1. .........................
``off''.
11. Longitudinal Acceleration..... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
12a. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-by-wire systems. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
12b. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. .........................
(fly-by-wire systems). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
13a. Lateral Control position(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
13b. Lateral Control position(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range. .........................
(fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
14a. Yaw Control position(s) (non- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy flight control break
Uniquely Required. away capability that
allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5.
14b. Yaw Control position(s) (fly- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range. .........................
by-wire). Higher Accuracy
Uniquely Required.
[[Page 37171]]
15. Pitch Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes fitted with
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated multiple or split
Uniquely Required. under Sec. surfaces, a suitable
121.344(f). combination of inputs is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
16. Lateral Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. A suitable combination of
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated surface position sensors
Uniquely Required. under Sec. is acceptable in lieu of
121.344(f). recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
17. Yaw Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes with
Position. Higher Accuracy multiple or split
Uniquely Required. surfaces, a suitable
combination of surface
position sensors is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5.
18. Lateral Acceleration.......... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g. .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
19. Pitch Trim Surface Position... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 1.................... 0.3% of full range. .........................
Accuracy Uniquely
Required..
20. Trailing Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Flap position and cockpit
Control Selection. Position (discrete).. Pilot's indicator. control may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals, to
give a data point every
2 seconds.
21. Leading Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Left and right sides, or
Control Selection. Discrete Position. Pilot's indicator flap position and
and sufficient to cockpit control may each
determine each be sampled at 4 second
discrete position. intervals, so as to give
a data point every 2
seconds.
22. Each Thrust Reverser Position Stowed, In Transit, ..................... 1 (per engine)....... .................... Turbo-jet 2 discretes
(or equivalent for propeller and Reverse enable the 3 states to
airplane). (Discrete).. be determined, Turbo--
prop--1 discrete.
23. Ground Spoiler Position or Full Range or Each +/-2 deg. Un
FR Doc. 96-17824 Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
less 1, 0.5 for airplanes 0.2% of full range. .........................
Speed Brake Selection. Position (discrete).. Higher Accuracy operated under Sec.
Uniquely Required. 121.344(f).
24. Outside Air Temperature or -50 deg.C to +90 +/-2 deg. C.......... 2.................... 0.3 deg. C. .........................
Total Air Temperature. deg.C.
25. Autopilot/Autothrottle/AFCS A suitable ..................... 1.................... .................... Discretes should show
Mode and Engagement Status. combination of which systems are
discretes. engaged and which
primary modes are
controlling the flight
path and speed of the
aircraft.
26. Radio Altitude................ -20 ft to 2,500 ft... +/-2 ft or +/-3% 1.................... 1 ft +5% above 500 For autoland/category 3
Whichever is Greater ft. operations. each radio
Below 500 ft and +/- altimeter should be
5% Above 500 ft.. recorded, but arranged
so that at least one is
recorded each second.
27. Localizer Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Azimuth. available sensor recommended. operations. each system
range as installed +/ should be recorded but
-62 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
and MLS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need be
recorded.
[[Page 37172]]
28. Glideslope Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Elevation. available sensor recommended. operations. each system
range as installed. should be recorded but
0.9 to +30 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
and MlS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need be
recorded.
29. Marker Beacon Passage......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A single discrete is
``off''. acceptable for all
markers.
30. Master Warning................ Discrete............. ..................... 1.................... .................... Record the master warning
and record each ``red''
warning that cannot be
determined from other
parameters or from the
cockpit voice recorder.
31. Air/ground sensor (primary Discrete ``air'' or ..................... 1 (0.25 recommended).
airplane system reference nose or ``ground''.
main gear).
32. Angle of Attack (If measured As installed......... As Installed......... 2 or 0.5 for 0.3% of full range.. If left and right sensors
directly). airplanes operated are available, each may
under Sec. be recorded at 4 second
121.344(f). intervals so as to give
a data point each half
second.
33. Hydraulic Pressure Low, Each Discrete or available +/-5%................ 2.................... 0.5% of full range.
System. sensor range,
``low'' or
``normal''.
34. Groundspeed................... As Installed......... Most Accurate Systems 1.................... 0.2% of full range.
Installed.
35. GPWS (ground proximity warning Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
system). or ``off''. discretes unless
recorder capacity is
limited in which case a
singel discrete for all
modes is acceptable.
36. Landing Gear Position or Discrete............. ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Landing gear cockpit control discretes should be
selection. recorded.
37. Drift Angle................... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.1%.
38. Wind Speed and Direction...... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 1 knot, and 1.0.
39. Latitude and Longitude........ As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.002 deg........... Provided by the Primary
Navigation System
Reference. Where
capacity permits
Latitude/longitude
resolution should be
0.0002 deg..
40. Stick shaker and pusher Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
activation. ``off''. discretes to determine
activation.
41. Windshear Detection........... Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1.
or ``off''.
42. Throttle/power lever position. Full Range........... +/-2%................ 1 for each lever..... 2% of full range.... For airplanes with non-
mechanically linked
cockpit engine controls.
43. Additional Engine Parameters.. As installed......... As installed......... Each engine each 2% of full range.... Where capacity permits,
second. the preferred priority
is indicated vibration
level, N2, EGT, Fuel
Flow, Fuel Cut-off lever
position and N3, unless
engine manufacturer
recommends otherwise.
44. Traffic Alert and Collision Discretes............ As installed......... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Avoidance System (TCAS). discretes should be
recorded to determine
the status of--Combined
Control, Vertical
Control, Up Advisory,
and Down Advisory. (ref.
ARINC Characteristic 735
Attachment 6E, TCAS
VERTICAL RA DATA OUTPUT
WORD.)
45. DME 1 and 2 Distance.......... 0-200 NM;............ As installed......... 4.................... 1 NM................ 1 mile.
46. Nav 1 and 2 Selected Frequency Full range........... As installed......... 4.................... .................... Sufficient to determine
selected frequency.
47. Selected barometric setting... Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.) 0.2% of full range..
[[Page 37173]]
48. Selected Altitude............. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 100 ft.
49. Selected speed................ Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 knot.
50. Selected Mach................. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... .01.
51. Selected vertical speed....... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 100 ft/min.
52. Selected heading.............. Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 deg..
53. Selected flight path.......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 deg..
54. Selected decision height...... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 64................... 1 ft.
55. EFIS display format........... Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... .................... Discretes should show the
display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, composite, sector,
plan, nav aids, weather
radar, range, copy.
56. Multi-function/Engine Alerts Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... .................... Discretes should show the
Display format. display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, and the identity
of display pages for
emergency procedures,
need not be recorded.
57. Thrust command................ Full Range........... +/-2%................ 2.................... 2% of full range.
58. Thrust target................. Full Range........... +/-2%................ 4.................... 2% of full range.
59. Fuel quantity in CG trim tank. Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range.
60. Primary Navigation System Discrete GPS, INS, ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Reference. VOR/DME, MLS, Loran Discretes to determine
C, Omega, Localizer the Primary Navigation
Glideslope. System reference.
61. Ice Detection................. Discrete ``ice'' or ..................... 4.
``no ice''.
62. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
vibration.
63. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
over temp..
64. Engine warning each engine oil Discrete............. ..................... 1.
pressure low.
65. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
over speed.
66. Yaw Trim Surface Position..... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range.
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
67. Roll Trim Surface Position.... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range..
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
68. Brake Pressure (left and As installed......... +/-5%................ 1.................... .................... To determine braking
right). effort applied by pilots
or by autobrakes.
69. Brake Pedal Application (left Discrete or Analog +/-5% (Analog)....... 1.................... .................... To determine braking
and right). ``applied'' or applied by pilots.
``off''.
70. Yaw or sideslip angle......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5 deg.
71. Engine bleed valve position... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4.
``closed''.
72. De-icing or anti-icing system Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 4.
selection. ``off''.
73. Computed center of gravity.... Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range....
74. AC electrical bus status...... Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
[[Page 37174]]
75. DC electric bus status........ Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
76. APU bleed valve position...... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4.
``closed''.
77. Hydraulic Pressure (each Full Range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 100 psi.
system).
78. Loss of cabin pressure........ Discrete ``loss'' or ..................... 1.
``normal''.
79. Computer failure (critical Discrete ``fail'' or ..................... 4.
flight and engine control ``normal''.
systems).
80. Heads-up display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 4.
information source is installed). ``off''.
81. Para-visual display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1.
information source is installed). ``off''.
82. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.
position--pitch.
83. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.
position--roll.
84. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.
position--yaw.
85. Trailing edge flap and cockpit Full Range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Trailing edge flaps and
flap control position. cockpit flap control
position may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals to
provide a sample each
0.5 second.
86. Leading edge flap and cockpit Full Range or +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5% of full range.
flap control position. Discrete.
87. Ground spoiler position and Full Range or +/-5%................ 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range..
speed brake selection. discrete.
88. All cockpit flight control Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. For fly-by-wire flight
input forces (control wheel, Control wheel........ +/-70 lbs............ control systems, where
control column, rudder pedal). Control Column....... +/-85 lbs............ flight control surface
Rudder pedal......... +/-165 lbs........... position is a function
of the displacement of
the control input device
only, it is not
necessary to record this
parameter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE
8. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40104-40105, 40113, 40119, 44701-
44702, 44712, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44096.
9. In Sec. 129.1, the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 129.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Sections 129.14 and 129.20 also apply to U.S.-registered
aircraft operated in common carriage by a foreign person or foreign air
carrier solely outside the United States. * * *
10. Section 129.20 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 129.20 Digital flight data recorders.
No person may operate an aircraft under this part that is
registered in the United States unless it is equipped with one or more
approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and
storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the
storage medium. The flight data recorder must record the parameters
that would be required to be recorded if the aircraft were operated
under parts 121 or 135 of this chapter, and must be installed by the
compliance times required by those parts, as applicable to the
aircraft.
PART 135 AIR--TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
11. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
12. Section 135.152 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 37175]]
Sec. 135.152 Flight recorders.
* * * * *
(f) (1) For airplanes manufactured on or before [3 years after
effective date of final rule], and all other aircraft, each flight
recorder required by this section must be installed in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 23.1459, 25.1459, 27.1459, or 29.1459, as
appropriate, of this chapter. The correlation required by paragraph (c)
of Secs. 23.1459, 25.1459, 27.1459, or 29.1459, as appropriate, of this
chapter need be established only on one aircraft of a group of
aircraft:
(i) That are of the same type;
(ii) On which the flight recorder models and their installations
are the same; and
(iii) On which there are no differences in the type design with
respect to the installation of the first pilot's instruments associated
with the flight recorder. The most recent instrument calibration,
including the recording medium from which this calibration is derived,
and the recorder correlation must be retained by the certificate
holder.
(f) (2) For airplanes manufactured after [3 years after effective
date of final rule], each flight data recorder system required by this
section must be installed in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 23.1459 (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this chapter, or Sec. 25.1459
(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this chapter. A correlation must be
established between the values recorded by the flight data recorder and
the corresponding values being measured. The correlation must contain a
sufficient number of correlation points to accurately establish the
conversion from the recorded values to engineering units or discrete
state over the full operating range of the parameter. Except for
airplanes having separate altitude and airspeed sensors that are an
integral part of the flight data recorder system, a single correlation
may be established for any group of airplanes--
(i) That are of the same type;
(ii) On which the flight recorder system and its installation are
the same; and
(iii) On which there is no difference in the type design with
respect to the installation of those sensors associated with the flight
data recorder system. Documentation sufficient to convert recorded data
into the engineering units and discrete values specified in the
applicable appendix must be maintained by the certificate holder.
* * * * *
13. In Sec. 135.152, new paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) are added to
read as follows:
* * * * *
(h) The operational parameters required to be recorded by digital
flight data recorders required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this
section are as follows; the phrase ``when an information source is
installed'' following a parameter indicates that recording of that
parameter is not intended to require a change in installed equipment:
(1) Time;
(2) Pressure altitude;
(3) Indicated airspeed;
(4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record
discrete, true or magnetic);
(5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
(6) Pitch attitude;
(7) Roll attitude;
(8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization
reference;
(9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
(10) Autopilot engagement status;
(11) Longitudinal acceleration;
(12) Pitch control input;
(13) Lateral control input;
(14) Rudder pedal input;
(15) Primary pitch control surface position;
(16) Primary lateral control surface position;
(17) Primary yaw control surface position;
(18) Lateral acceleration;
(19) Pitch trim surface position or the parameters of paragraph
(h)(82) of this section, if currently recorded;
(20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (h)(85) of this section apply);
(21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except
when the parameters of paragraph (h)(86) of this section apply);
(22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller
airplane);
(23) Ground spoiler position or speed brake selection (except when
the parameters of paragraph (h)(87) of this section apply);
(24) Outside or total air temperature;
(25) Automatic Flight Control system (AFCS) modes and engagement
status, including autothrottle;
(26) Radio altitude (when an information source is installed);
(27) Localizer deviation, MLS Azimuth;
(28) Glideslope deviation, MLS Elevation;
(29) Market beacon passage;
(30) Master warning;
(31) Air/ground sensor (primary airplane system reference nose or
main gear);
(32) Angle of attack (when information source is installed);
(33) Hydraulic pressure low (each system);
(34) Ground speed (when an information source is installed);
(35) Ground proximity warning system;
(36) Landing gear position or landing gear cockpit control
selection;
(37) Drift angle (when an information source is installed);
(38) Wind speed and direction (when an information source is
installed);
(39) Latitude and longitude (when an information source is
installed);
(40) Stick shaker/pusher (when an information source is installed);
(41) Windshear (when an information source is installed);
(42) Throttle/power lever position;
(43) Additional engine parameters (as designated in appendix F of
this part);
(44) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system;
(45) DME 1 and 2 distances;
(46) Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency;
(47) Selected barometric setting (when an information source is
installed);
(48) Selected altitude (when an information source is installed);
(49) Selected speed (when an information source is installed);
(50) Selected mach (when an information source is installed);
(51) Selected vertical speed (when an information source is
installed);
(52) Selected heading (when an information source is installed);
(53) Selected flight path (when an information source is
installed);
(54) Selected decision height (when an information source is
installed);
(55) EFIS display format;
(56) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format;
(57) Thrust command (when an information source is installed);
(58) Thrust target (when an information source is installed);
(59) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank (when an information source is
installed);
(60) Primary Navigation System Reference;
(61) Icing (when an information source is installed);
(62) Engine warning each engine vibration (when an information
source is installed);
(63) Engine warning each engine over temp. (when an information
source is installed);
(64) Engine warning each engine oil pressure low (when an
information source is installed);
(65) Engine warning each engine over speed (when an information
source is installed);
(66) Yaw trim surface position;
(67) Roll trim surface position;
[[Page 37176]]
(68) Brake pressure (selected system);
(69) Brake pedal application (left and right);
(70) Yaw or sideslip angle (when an information source is
installed);
(71) Engine bleed valve position (when an information source is
installed);
(72) De-icing or anti-icing system selection (when an information
source is installed);
(73) Computed center of gravity (when an information source is
installed);
(74) AC electrical bus status;
(75) DC electrical bus status;
(76) APU bleed valve position (when an information source is
installed);
(77) Hydraulic pressure (each system);
(78) Loss of cabin pressure;
(79) Computer failure;
(80) Heads-up display (when an information source is installed);
(81) Para-visual display (when an information source is installed);
(82) Cockpit trim control input position--pitch;
(83) Cockpit trim control input position--roll;
(84) Cockpit trim control input position--yaw;
(85) Trailing edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(86) Leading edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(87) Ground spoiler position and speed brake selection; and
(88) All cockpit flight control input forces (control wheel,
control column, rudder pedal).
(i) For all turbine-engine-powered airplanes with a seating
configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30
passenger seats, manufactured after [3 years after effective date of
the final rule]--
(1) The parameters listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(57) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix F of this
part.
(2) Commensurate with the capacity of the recording system, all
additional parameters for which information sources are installed and
which are connected to the recording system, must be recorded within
the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and sampling intervals specified
in appendix F of this part.
(j) For all turbine-engine-powered airplanes with a seating
configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30
passenger seats, that are manufactured after [5 years after effective
date of final rule], the parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through
(a)(88) of this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix F of this
part.
14. Appendix F to part 135 is added to read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 135.--Airplane Flight Recorder Specification
[The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data recorded must
be correlated in time to within one second]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy (sensor Seconds per sampling
Parameters Range input) Interval Resolution Remarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Time or Relative Time Counts... 24 Hrs 0 to 4095..... +/-0.125 Per Hour.... 4.................... 1 sec............... UTC time preferred when
available. Counter
increments each 4
seconds of system
operation.
2. Pressure Altitude.............. -1000 ft to max +/-100 to +/-700 ft 1.................... 5' to 35'........... Data should be obtained
certificated (see table, TSO from the air data
altitude of C124a or TSO C51a). computer when
aircraft.+5000 ft. practicable.
3. Indicated airspeed or 50 KIAS or minimum +/-5% and +/-3%...... 1.................... 1 kt................ Data should be obtained
Calibrated airspeed. value to Max Vso and from the air data
Vso to 1.2 V.D. computer when
practicable.
4. Heading (Primary flight crew 0-360 deg. and +/-2 deg............. 1.................... 0.5 deg............. When true or magnetic
reference). Discrete ``true'' or heading can be selected
``mag''. as the primary heading
reference, a discrete
indicating selection
must be recorded.
5. Normal Acceleration (Vertical). -3g to +6g........... +/--1% of max range 0.125................ 0.01g .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
6. Pitch Attitude................. +/-75 deg............ +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.25 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.25
airplanes operated is recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
7. Roll Attitude.................. +/-180 deg........... +/-2 deg............. 1 or 0.5 for 0.5 deg............. A sampling rate of 0.5 is
airplanes operated recommended.
under Sec.
121.344(f).
8. Manual Radio Transmitter Keying On-Off (Discrete).... ..................... 1.................... .................... Preferably each crew
or CVR/DFDR synchronization member but one discrete
reference. acceptable for all
transmission provided
the CVR/FDR system
complies with TSO C124a
CVR synchronization
requirements (paragraph
4.2.1 ED-55).
9. Thrust/Power on Each Engine-- Full Range Forward... +/-2%................ 1 (per engine)....... 0.2% of full range.. Sufficient parameters
primary flight crew reference. (e.g. EPR, N1 or Torque,
NP) as appropriate to
the particular engine be
recorded to determine
power in forward and
reverse thrust,
including potential
overspeed conditions.
[[Page 37177]]
10. Autopilot Engagement.......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1. .........................
``off''.
11. Longitudinal Acceleration..... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g............... .........................
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
12a. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-wire systems. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
12b. Pitch Control(s) position Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. .........................
(fly-by-wire systems). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
13a. Lateral Control position(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
(non-fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated flight control break
Uniquely Required. under Sec. away capability that
121.344(f). allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25, as
applicable.
13b. Lateral Control position(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.
(fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
14a. Yaw Control Position(s) (non- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes that have a
fly-by-wire). Higher Accuracy flight control break
Uniquely Required. away capability that
allows either pilot to
operate the controls
independently, record
both control inputs. The
control inputs may be
sampled alternately once
per second to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5.
14b. Yaw Control Position(s) (fly- Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.
by-wire). Higher Accuracy
Uniquely Required.
15. Pitch Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes fitted with
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated multiple or split
Uniquely Required. under Sec. surfaces, a suitable
121.344(f). combination of inputs is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
16. Lateral Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5 or 0.25 for 0.2% of full range.. A suitable combination of
Position. Higher Accuracy airplanes operated surface position sensors
Uniquely Required. under Sec. is acceptable in lieu of
121.344(f). recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5 or 0.25.
17. Yaw Control Surface(s) Full Range........... +/-2 deg. Unless 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range.. For airplanes with
Position. Higher Accuracy multiple or split
Uniquely Required. surfaces, a suitable
combination of surface
position sensors is
acceptable in lieu of
recording each surface
separately. The control
surfaces may be sampled
alternately to produce
the sampling interval of
0.5
18. Lateral Acceleration.......... +/-1g................ +/-1.5% max. range 0.25................. 0.01g.
excluding datum
error of +/-5%.
[[Page 37178]]
19. Pitch Trim Surface Position... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 1.................... 0.3% of full range.
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
20. Trailing Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Flap position and cockpit
Control Selection. Position (discrete). Pilot's indicator. control may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals, to
give a data point every
2 seconds.
21. Leading Edge Flap or Cockpit Full Range or Each +/-3 deg. or as 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Left and right sides, or
Control Selection. Discrete Position. Pilot's indicator flap position and
and sufficient to cockpit control may each
determine each be sampled at 4 second
discrete position. intervals, so as to give
a data point every 2
seconds.
22. Each Thrust Reverser Position Stowed, In Transit, ..................... 1 (per engine)....... .................... Turbo-jet--2 discretes
(or equivalent for propeller and Reverse enable the 3 states to
airplane). (Discrete).. be determined Turbo-prop-
1 discrete.
23. Ground Spoiler Position or Full Range or Each +/-2 deg. Unless 1 or 0.5 for 0.2% of full range.
Speed Brake Selection. Position (discrete). Higher Accuracy airplanes operated
Uniquely Required. under Sec.
121.344(f).
24. Outside Air Temperature or -50 deg.C to +90 +/-2 deg. C.......... 2.................... 0.3 deg. C.
Total Air Temperature. deg.C.
25. Autopilot/Autothrottle/AFCS A suitable ..................... 1.................... .................... Discretes should show
Mode and Engagement Status. combination of which systems are
discretes. engaged and which
primary modes are
controlling the flight
path and speed of the
aircraft.
26. Radio Altitude................ -20 ft to 2,500 ft... +/-2 ft or +/-3% 1.................... 1 ft 5% above 500 ft For autoland/category 3
Whichever is Greater of full range. operations, each radio
Below 500 ft and +/- altimeter should be
5% Above 500 ft. recorded, but arranged
so that at least one is
recorded each second.
27. Localizer Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Azimuth. available sensor recommended. operations, each system
range as installed +/ should be recorded but
-62 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
and MLS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need to be
recorded.
28. Glideslope Deviation or MLS +/-400 Microamps or As installed +/-3% 1.................... 0.3% of full range.. For autoland/category 3
Elevation. available sensor recommended. operations, each system
range as installed. should be recorded but
0.9 to + 30 deg.. arranged so that at
least one is recorded
each second. It is not
necessary to record ILS
FR Doc. 96-17824 Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules
and MLS at the same
time, only the approach
aid in use need to be
recorded.
29. Marker Beacon Passage......... Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A single discrete is
``off''. acceptable for all
markers.
30. Master Warning................ Discrete............. ..................... 1.................... .................... Record the master warning
and record each `red'
warning that cannot be
determined from other
parameters or from the
cockpit voice recorder.
31. Air/ground sensor (primary Discrete ``air'' or ..................... 1 (0.25 recommended).
airplane system reference nose or ``ground''.
main gear).
32. Angle of Attack (If measured As installed......... As Installed......... 2 or 0.5 for 0.3% of full range.. If left and right sensors
directly). airplanes operated are available, each may
under Sec. be recorded at 4 second
121.344(f). intervals so as to give
a data point each half
second.
33. Hydraulic Pressure Low, Each Discrete or available +/- 5%............... 2.................... 0.5% of full range.
System. sensor range,
``low'' or
``normal''.
[[Page 37179]]
34. Groundspeed................... As Installed......... Most Accurate Systems 1.................... 0.2% of full range.
Installed.
35. GPWS (ground proximity warning Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
system). or ``off''. discretes unless
recorder capacity is
limited in which case a
single discrete for all
modes is acceptable.
36. Landing Gear Position or Discrete............. ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Landing gear cockpit control discretes should be
selection. recorded.
37. Drift Angle................... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.1 deg..
38. Wind Speed and Direction...... As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 1 knot, and 1.0
deg..
39. Latitude and Longitude........ As installed......... As installed......... 4.................... 0.002 deg........... Provided by the Primary
Navigation System
Reference. Where
capacity permits
Latitude/longitude
resolution should be
0.0002 deg..
40. Stick shaker and pusher Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
activation. ``off''. discretes to determine
activation.
41. Windshear Detection........... Discrete ``warning'' ..................... 1. .........................
or ``off''.
42. Throttle/power lever position. Full Range........... +/- 2%............... 1 for each lever..... 2% of full range.... For airplanes with non-
mechanically linked
cockpit engine controls.
43. Additional Engine Parameters.. As installed......... As installed......... Each engine each 2% of full range.... Where capacity permits,
second. the preferred priority
is indicated vibration
level, N2, EGT, Fuel
Flow, Fuel Cut-off lever
position and N3, unless
engine manufacturer
recommends otherwise.
44. Traffic Alert and Collision Discretes............ As installed......... 1.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Avoidance System (TCAS). discretes should be
recorded to determine
the status of--Combined
Control, Vertical
Control, Up Advisory,
and Down Advisory. (ref.
ARINC Characteristic 735
Attachment 6E, TCAS
VERTICAL RA DATA OUTPUT
WORD.)
45. DME 1 and 2 Distance.......... 0-200 NM;............ As installed......... 4.................... 1 NM................ 1 mile.
46. Nav 1 and 2 Selected Frequency Full range........... As installed......... 4.................... .................... Sufficient to determine
selected frequency.
47. Selected barometric setting... Full Range........... +/- 5%............... (1 per 64 sec.)...... 0.2% of full range.
48. Selected Altitude............. Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 1.................... 100 ft.
49. Selected speed................ Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 1.................... 1 knot.
50. Selected Mach................. Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 1.................... .01.
51. Selected vertical speed....... Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 1.................... 100 ft/min.
52. Selected heading.............. Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 1.................... 1 deg...............
53. Selected flight path.......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 1 deg..
54. Selected decision height...... Full Range........... +/- 5%............... 64................... 1 ft.
55. EFIS display format........... Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... .................... Discretes should show the
display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, composite, sector,
plan, nav aids, weather
radar, range, copy.
56. Multi-function/Engine Alerts Discrete(s).......... ..................... 4.................... .................... Discretes should show the
Display format. display system status
(e.g., off, normal,
fail, and the identity
of display pages for
emergency procedures,
need not be recorded.
57. Thrust command................ Full Range........... +/- 2%............... 2.................... 2% of full range.
58. Thrust target................. Full Range........... +/-2%................ 4.................... 2% of full range. .........................
59. Fuel quantity in CG trim tank. Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range. .........................
[[Page 37180]]
60. Primary Navigation System Discrete GPS, INS, ..................... 4.................... .................... A suitable combination of
Reference. VOR/DME, MLS, Loran discretes to determine
C, Omega, Localizer the Primary Navigation
Glideslope. System Reference.
61. Ice Detection................. Discrete ``ice'' or ..................... 4. .........................
``no ice''.
62. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1. .........................
vibration.
63. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1. .........................
over temp.
64. Engine warning each engine oil Discrete............. ..................... 1.
pressure low.
65. Engine warning each engine Discrete............. ..................... 1.
over speed.
66. Yaw Trim Surface Position..... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range.. .........................
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
67. Roll Trim Surface Position.... Full Range........... +/-3% Unless Higher 2.................... 0.3% of full range.. .........................
Accuracy Uniquely
Required.
68. Brake Pressure (left and As installed......... +/-5%................ 1.................... .................... To determine braking
right). effort applied by pilots
or by autobrakes.
69. Brake Pedal Application (left Discrete or Analog +/-5% (Analog)....... 4.................... .................... To determine braking
and right). ``applied'' or applied by pilots.
``off''.
70. Yaw or sideslip angle......... Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5 deg.. .........................
71. Engine bleed valve position... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4. .........................
``closed''.
72. Deicing or anti-icing system Discrete ``on'' or ..................... 4. .........................
selection. ``off''.
73. Computed center of gravity.... Full Range........... +/-5%................ (1 per 64 sec.)...... 1% of full range. .........................
74. AC electrical bus status...... Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
75. DC electrical bus status...... Discrete ``power'' or ..................... 4.................... .................... Each bus.
``off''.
76. APU bleed valve position...... Discrete ``open'' or ..................... 4. .........................
``closed''.
77. Hydraulic Pressure (each Full range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 100 psi. .........................
system).
78. Loss of cabin pressure........ Discrete ``loss'' or ..................... 1.
``normal''.
79. Computer failure (critical Discrete ``fail'' or ..................... 4
flight and engine control ``normal''.
systems).
80. Heads-up display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 4.
information source is installed). ``off''.
81. Para-visual display (when an Discrete(s) ``on'' or ..................... 1.
information source is installed). ``off''.
82. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--pitch.
[[Page 37181]]
83. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--roll.
84. Cockpit trim control input Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. .........................
position--yaw.
85. Trailing edge flap and cockpit Full Range........... +/-5%................ 2.................... 0.5% of full range.. Trailing edge flaps and
flap control position. cockpit flap control
position may each be
sampled alternately at 4
second intervals to
provide a sample each
0.5 second.
86. Leading edge flap and cockpit Full Range or +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.5% of full range.. .........................
flap control position. Discrete.
87. Ground spoiler position and Full Range or +/-5%................ 0.5.................. 0.2% of full range. .........................
speed brake selection. discrete.
88. All cockpit flight control Full Range........... +/-5%................ 1.................... 0.2% of full range.. For fly-by-wire flight
input forces (control wheel, Control wheel........ +/-70 lbs. control systems, where
control column, rudder pedal). Control Column....... +/-85 lbs. flight control surface
Rudder pedal......... +/-165 lbs. position is a function
of the displacement of
the control input device
only, it is not
necessary to record this
parameter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 1996.
Ava L. Robinson,
Special Assistant to the Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17824 Filed 7-10-96; 3:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17430 Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17430]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 290
RIN 1076-AD14
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document modifies the preamble to a proposed rule
published on June 7, 1996 regarding tribal revenue allocation plans.
This correction clarifies that the proposed rule applies prospectively
to plans submitted for approval from the effective date of the final
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Pierskalla, Management Analyst, Indian Gaming Management Staff
Office, at 202-219-4068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In proposed rule FR Doc 96-14061, beginning
on page 29044 in the issue of Friday, June 7, 1996, make the following
correction on page 29044:
1. In ``Supplementary Information'' add at the end of the second
paragraph the following, ``This rule applies to Tribal Revenue
Allocation Plans submitted and approved after the effective date of the
final rule. Previously approved Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans need
not be resubmitted for review and approval by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and continue to remain in effect. However, amendments to
approved Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans will need to be submitted to
the BIA for approval under the proposed regulation.''
Dated: July 1, 1996
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-17430 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.