Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34121

PART 575—RECRUITMENT AND

RELOCATION BONUSES; RETENTION

ALLOWANCES; SUPERVISORY

DIFFERENTIALS

1. The authority citation for part 575

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), 5753, 5754,

and 5755; secs. 302 and 404 of the Federal

Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990

(Pub. L. 101–509), 104 Stat. 1462 and 1466,

respectively; E.O. 12748, 3 CFR, 1992 Comp.,

p. 316.

Subpart C—Retention Allowances

2. Section 575.305 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 575.305 Agency retention allowance

plans; higher level review and approval;

and criteria for payment.

* * * * *

(d) Approval of retention allowances

for groups or categories of employees.

(1) An agency may authorize a retention

allowance of up to 10 percent of an

employee’s rate of basic pay for a group

or category of employees (excluding

individuals covered by § 575.302(a) (2),

(3), (5), or (6) or those in similar

positions with respect to which the

authority to approve retention

allowances has been delegated to agency

heads by OPM under § 575.302(c)) based

on a written determination that the

category of employees has unusually

high or unique qualifications, or the

agency has a special need for the

employees’ services that makes it

essential to retain the employees in that

category, and that it is reasonable to

presume that there is a high risk that a

significant number of employees in the

targeted category are likely to leave

Federal service in the absence of the

allowance. The determination that there

is a high risk that a significant number

of employees in the targeted category

are likely to leave may be based on

evidence of extreme labor market

conditions, high demand in the private

sector for the knowledge and skills

possessed by the employees, significant

disparities between Federal and private

sector salaries, or other similar

conditions.

(2) Upon the request of the head of an

agency, OPM may approve a retention

allowance in excess of 10 percent, but

not in excess of 25 percent, of an

employee’s rate of basic pay for a group

or category of employees that meets the

criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) of

this section. OPM may require that such

requests be coordinated with other

agencies having similarly situated

employees in the same category. Group

retention allowance requests must

include—

(i) A description of the group or

category and number of employees to be

covered by the proposed retention

allowance;

(ii) A written determination that the

group or category of employees meets

the criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1)

of this section;

(iii) The proposed percentage

retention allowance payment and a

justification for that percentage;

(iv) The expected duration of

retention allowance payments; and

(v) Any other information pertinent to

the case at hand.

(3) All other criteria and requirements

for payment under this subpart must be

met before a retention allowance may be

paid to any individual employee under

this paragraph (d).

[FR Doc. 98–16667 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM149, Special Conditions No.

25–138–SC]

Special Conditions: McDonnell

Douglas DC–9–81,–82 Airplanes; High

Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for McDonnell Douglas DC–9–81,

–82 airplanes modified by Midwest

Express Airlines. These airplanes will

have novel and unusual design features

when compared to the state of

technology envisioned in the

airworthiness standards for transport

category airplanes. These special

conditions contain the additional safety

standards that the Administrator

considers necessary to establish a level

of safety equivalent to that provided by

the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these

special conditions is June 11, 1998.

Comments must be received on or

before August 7, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special

conditions may be mailed in duplicate

to: Federal Aviation Administration,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attn: Rules Docket (ANM–7), Docket

No. NM149, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington, 98055–4056; or

delivered in duplicate to the Office of

the Assistant Chief Counsel at the above

address. Comments must be marked:

Docket No. NM149. Comments may be

inspected in the Rules Docket

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Beeane, FAA, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington, 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–2799; facsimile

(425) 227–2796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA has determined that good

cause exists for making these special

conditions effective upon issuance;

however, interested persons are invited

to submit such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

docket and special conditions number

and be submitted in duplicate to the

address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered by the Administrator. These

special conditions may be changed in

light of the comments received. All

comments submitted will be available in

the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons, both before and after

the closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerning

this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket. Persons wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this request

must submit with those comments a

self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. NM149.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On March 12, 1998, Midwest Express

Airlines applied for a supplemental type

certificate (STC) to modify McDonnell

Douglas DC–9–81, –82 airplanes listed

on Type Certificate A6WE. The

modification incorporates the

installation of electronic flight

instrument system (EFIS) for display of

critical flight parameters (altitude,

airspeed, and attitude) to the crew.

These displays can be susceptible to

disruption to both command/response

signals as a result of electrical and

magnetic interference. This disruption

of signals could result in loss of all

critical flight displays and

annunciations or present misleading

information to the pilot.
34122 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR

§ 21.101, Midwest Express Avionics

must show that the McDonnell Douglas

DC–9–81, –82 airplanes, as changed,

continue to meet the applicable

provisions of the regulations

incorporated by reference in Type

Certificate No. A6WE, or the applicable

regulations in effect on the date of

application for the change. The

regulations incorporated by reference in

the type certificate are commonly

referred to as the ‘‘original type

certification basis.’’ The certification

basis for the modified McDonnell

Douglas DC–9–81, –82 airplanes include

14 CFR part 25, dated February 1, 1965,

with Amendments 1 through 40, as

amended by TCDS A6WE.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not

contain adequate or appropriate safety

standards for the McDonnell Douglas

DC–9–81, –82 airplanes because of

novel or unusual design features,

special conditions are prescribed under

the provisions of § 21.16 to establish a

level of safety equivalent to that

established in the regulations.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.49

after public notice, as required by

§§ 11.28 and 11.29, and become part of

the type certification basis in

accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially

applicable to the model for which they

are issued. Should Midwest Express

Airlines apply at a later date for design

change approval to modify any other

model already included on the same

type certificate to incorporate the same

novel or unusual design feature, these

special conditions would also apply to

the other model under the provisions of

§ 21.101(a)(1).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The modified McDonnell Douglas

DC–9–81, –82 will incorporate a new

electronic flight instrument system

(EFIS), which was not available at the

time of certification of these airplanes,

that performs critical functions. This

system may be vulnerable to HIRF

external to the airplane.

Discussion

There is no specific regulation that

addresses protection requirements for

electrical and electronic systems from

HIRF. Increased power levels from

ground-based radio transmitters and the

growing use of sensitive electrical and

electronic systems to command and

control airplanes have made it necessary

to provide adequate protection.

To ensure that a level of safety is

achieved equivalent to that intended by

the regulations incorporated by

reference, special conditions are needed

for the McDonnell Douglas DC–9–81,

–82, which require that new electrical

and electronic systems, such as the

EFIS, that perform critical functions be

designed and installed to preclude

component damage and interruption of

function due to both the direct and

indirect effects of HIRF.

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)

With the trend toward increased

power levels from ground-based

transmitters, plus the advent of space

and satellite communications, coupled

with electronic command and control of

the airplane, the immunity of critical

digital avionics systems to HIRF must be

established.

It is not possible to precisely define

the HIRF to which the airplane will be

exposed in service. There is also

uncertainty concerning the effectiveness

of airframe shielding for HIRF.

Furthermore, coupling of

electromagnetic energy to cockpitinstalled equipment through the cockpit

window apertures is undefined. Based

on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF

emitters, an adequate level of protection

exists when compliance with the HIRF

protection special condition is shown

with either paragraphs 1, OR 2 below:

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts per

meter peak electric field strength from

10 KHz to 18 GHz.

a. The threat must be applied to the

system elements and their associated

wiring harnesses without the benefit of

airframe shielding.

b. Demonstration of this level of

protection is established through system

tests and analysis.

2. A threat external to the airframe of

the following field strengths for the

frequency ranges indicated.

Frequency

Field strength

(volts per meter)

Peak Average

10 kHz—100 kHz .. 50 50

100 kHz—500 kHz 50 50

500 kHz—2 MHz ... 50 50

2 MHz—30 MHz ... 100 100

30 MHz—70 MHz 50 50

70 MHz—100 MHz 50 50

100 MHz—200

MHz ................... 100 100

200 MHz—400

MHz ................... 100 100

400 MHz—700

MHz ................... 700 50

700 MHz—1 GHz .. 700 100

1 GHz—2 GHz ...... 2000 200

2 GHz—4 GHz ...... 3000 200

4 GHz—6 GHz ...... 3000 200

Frequency

Field strength

(volts per meter)

Peak Average

6 GHz—8 GHz ...... 1000 200

8 GHz—12 GHz .... 3000 300

12 GHz—18 GHz .. 2000 200

18 GHz—40 GHz .. 600 200

The field strengths are expressed in terms

of peak root-mean-square (rms) values.

The threat levels identified above

differ from those used in previous

special conditions are the result of an

FAA review of existing studies on the

subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing

work of the Electromagnetic Effects

Harmonization Working Group of the

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee. In general, these standards

are less critical than the threat level that

was previously used as the basis for

earlier special conditions.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special

conditions are applicable to McDonnell

Douglas DC–9–81, –82 airplanes

modified by Midwest Express Airlines.

Should Midwest Express Airlines apply

at a later date for design change

approval to modify any other model

included on the same type certificate to

incorporate the same novel or unusual

design feature, these special conditions

would apply to that model as well

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects only certain design

features on McDonnell Douglas DC–9–

81, –82 airplanes modified by Midwest

Express Avionics. It is not a rule of

general applicability and affects only

the applicant who applied to the FAA

for approval of these features on the

airplane.

The substance of the special

conditions for this airplane has been

subjected to the notice and comment

procedure in several prior instances and

has been derived without substantive

change from those previously issued. It

is unlikely that prior public comment

would result in a significant change

from the substance contained herein.

For this reason, and because a delay

would significantly affect the

certification of the airplane, which is

imminent, the FAA has determined that

prior public notice and comment are

unnecessary and impracticable, and

good cause exists for adopting these

special conditions immediately.

Therefore, these special conditions are

being made effective upon issuance. The

FAA is requesting comments to allow

interested persons to submit views that

may not have been submitted in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34123

response to the prior opportunities for

comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these

special conditions is as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,

44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the following special

conditions are issued as part of the type

certification basis for McDonnell

Douglas DC–9–81, –82 airplanes

modified by Midwest Express Airlines.

1. Protection From Unwanted Effects

of High-Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF). Each electrical and electronic

system that performs critical functions

must be designed and installed to

ensure that the operation and

operational capability of these systems

to perform critical functions are not

adversely affected when the airplane is

exposed to high intensity radiated

fields. For the purpose of these special

conditions, the following definition

applies:

Critical Functions. Functions whose

failure would contribute to or cause a

failure condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

airplane.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 11,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–16632 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–97–020]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Passaic River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends the

operating rules for five bridges over the

Passaic River in New Jersey. This final

rule will allow the bridge owners to

operate their bridges on an advance

notice basis. The Jackson Street Bridge

at mile 4.6, the Bridge Street Bridge at

mile 5.6, and the Clay Street Bridge at

mile 6.0, will open on signal after a four

hour advance notice is given. The New

Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO)

Bridge at mile 11.7, and the Route 3

Bridge at mile 11.8, will open on signal

after a 24 hour notice is given. This final

rule is expected to relieve the bridge

owners of the burden of constantly

having personnel available to open the

bridges and still provide for the needs

of navigation.

DATES: This final rule is effective July

23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in

this preamble are available for

inspection or copying at the First Coast

Guard District Office, 408 Atlantic

Avenue, Boston, Ma. 02110–3350, 7

a.m. through 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (617) 223–8364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First

Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On February 13, 1998, the Coast

Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking entitled Drawbridge

Operation Regulations Passaic River,

New Jersey, in the Federal Register (63

FR 7357). The Coast Guard did not

receive any comments in response to the

notice of proposed rulemaking. No

public hearing was requested, and none

was held.

Background

The clearances at mean high water

(MHW) and mean low water (MLW) for

the five bridges affected by this rule

change are as follows: Jackson Street 15′

MHW & 20′ MLW, Bridge Street 7′

MHW & 12′ MLW, Clay Street 8′ MHW

& 13′ MLW, NJTRO 26′ MHW & 31′

MLW and Route 3 35′ MHW & 40′ MLW.

The Jackson Street, Bridge Street and

Clay Street bridges presently open on

signal, except that, notice must be given

before 2:30 a.m. for openings between

4:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. This change to the

operating regulations will require the

bridges to open on signal after four

hours notice is given.

The NJTRO Bridge presently opens on

signal from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., if at least

six hours notice is given. From 4 p.m.

to 8 a.m., the draw need not be open.

The Route 3 Bridge presently opens on

signal, if at least six hours notice is

given. New Jersey Transit Rail

Operations records indicate there has

not been a request to open the NJTRO

Bridge since December, 1991. The New

Jersey Department of Transportation

records indicate there have been only

ten bridge openings during the last ten

years for the Route 3 Bridge. All ten

openings were test openings.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

No comments were received in

response to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking. The six month advance

notice requirement for the NJTRO and

Route 3 Bridge published in the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking has been

changed to a 24 hour advance notice for

openings. Upon further review the Coast

Guard believes a 24 hour notice is a

more reasonable time period than the

six months in the original proposal. The

Coast Guard believes that six months is

too restrictive for mariners that may

need to transit through the bridges. The

bridge owners have been contacted and

advised that a six month notice is too

restrictive to navigation and so long as

the respective bridges are movable

bridges that they must continue to keep

the operating machinery in good

working condition. A 24 hour advance

notice should still provide relief to the

bridge owners by not requiring the

bridges to be crewed and still provide

for the needs of navigation that may

desire to pass through the bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

Order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that Order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this final rule to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary. This conclusion is

based on the fact that bridges must

operate in accordance with the needs of

navigation while providing for the

reasonable needs of land transportation.

This final rule adopts the operating

hours which the Coast Guard believes to

be appropriate based on the results of

past experience with the roving

drawtender crew operation and public

comments. The Coast Guard believes

this final rule achieves the requirement

of balancing the navigational rights of

boaters and the needs of land based

transportation.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

considered whether this final rule will

have a significant economic impact on