47854 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

be insufficient in order to comply with 

the regulations. Each individual 

licensee is free to determine whether or 

not it wants to employ such a 

concurrence process. 

Summary of Issue 

The decision to depart from the 

license or a technical specification in an 

emergency shall be approved, as a 

minimum, by a licensed senior operator. 

If more senior licensee personnel are 

available, the decision to depart from 

the license in an emergency would pass 

to them as higher authorities in the 

chain of command. The rule does not 

specify that the senior licensee 

personnel be licensed senior operators 

or that they obtain the concurrence of a 

licensed senior operator to make such a 

decision. 

Backfit Discussion 

This RIS does not represent a new or 

different staff position regarding the 

implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(x) and 

is consistent with the SOC for 10 CFR 

50.54(x) and (y), and the staff guidance 

in the November, 1986 Zwolinski letter. 

It requires no action or written response. 

Any action by addressees to implement 

changes to their security or emergency 

plans, or procedures in accordance with 

the guidance in this RIS is strictly 

voluntary and, therefore, is not a backfit 

under 10 CFR 50.109, ‘‘Backfitting.’’

Consequently, the NRC staff did not 

perform a backfit analysis. 

Federal Register Notification 

To be done after the public comments 

period. 

Congressional Review Act 

This RIS is not a rule as designated by 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801–886) and, therefore, is not subject to 

the Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This RIS does not contain any 

information collections and, therefore, 

is not subject to the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Contact 

Please direct any questions about this 

matter to Jeff Laughlin at 301–415–1113 

or by e-mail at Jeff.Laughlin@nrc.gov. 

End of Draft Regulatory Issue Summary 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room at One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible electronically 

from the Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ 

index.html. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if you have problems in 

accessing the documents in ADAMS, 

contact the NRC Public Document Room 

(PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209 

or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of August 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Martin C. Murphy, 

Chief, Generic Communications Branch, 

Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E8–18918 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 219 

[Regulation S; Docket No. R–1325] 

Reimbursement for Providing Financial 

Records; Recordkeeping 

Requirements for Certain Financial 

Records 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (Board) is 

proposing amendments to Subpart A of 

Regulation S, which implements the 

requirement under the Right to 

Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that the 

Board establish the rates and conditions 

under which payment shall be made by 

a government authority to a financial 

institution for assembling or providing 

financial records pursuant to RFPA. 

These proposed amendments update the 

fees to be charged and take account of 

recent advances in electronic document 

productions. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. R–1325, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments at: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 452–3101. 

• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, 20th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20551. 

All public comments are available 

from the Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/ 

foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, 

unless modified for technical reasons. 

Accordingly, your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information. Public comments 

may also be viewed electronically or in 

paper in Room MP–500 of the Board’s 

Martin Building (20th and C Streets, 

NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 

weekdays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Gonzalez, Senior Attorney (202/ 

452–3275), Legal Division, Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, Washington, DC 20551. For 

users of the Telecommunication Device 

for the Deaf (TDD), please call (202) 

263–4869. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 1115 of the RFPA (12 U.S.C. 

3415) requires the Board to establish, by 

regulation, the rates and conditions 

under which payment is made by a 

Government authority to a financial 

institution for searching for, 

reproducing, or transporting data 

required or requested under the RFPA. 

Shortly after the RFPA was adopted, the 

Board issued Regulation S (12 CFR Part 

219) to implement this provision (44 FR 

55812, September 28, 1979). These 

provisions were subsequently 

designated Subpart A of Regulation S. In 

June 1996, the Board revised Regulation 

S by updating the fees financial 

institutions could charge and 

streamlining the Subpart generally. 61 

FR 29638 (June 12, 1996). 

In the twelve years since the last 

revision, the Board has observed two 

significant changes that now require 

further amendments to Subpart A of 

Regulation S. First, increases in salary 

and benefits have caused the fees 

chargeable for reproducing financial 

records to become outdated. 

Furthermore, in recent years, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 47855 

production of electronically stored 

information during investigations and in 

litigation has become increasingly 

common. Charles Alan Wright, Arthur 

R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal 

Practice & Procedure, § 2218 at 449 (2d 

ed. 2006). Many government agencies 

now prefer to receive information in 

digital formats, thereby easing handling 

and analysis. Consequently, the 

amendments proposed below are 

intended to update the existing rates to 

be paid and provide a reimbursement 

scheme that more accurately reflects the 

costs of producing electronically stored 

information in digital formats. 

Proposed Amendments 

The Board proposes to amend 

Regulation S in the following manner: 

I. Cost Reimbursement 

(a) Fees Payable. This section is being 

clarified to state specifically that 

financial institutions are eligible for 

reimbursement when producing 

financial records that have been 

requested pursuant to an administrative 

agency request, as well as by court order 

or subpoena. The Board of Governors 

has received information that some 

financial institutions and government 

agencies may be incorrectly limiting 

reimbursement under the Regulation to 

compelled court or grand jury 

subpoenas for customer account 

information. 

(b) Search & Processing Costs. When 

subpart A was last amended in 1996, 

document productions were typically 

made on paper. Consequently, the 

reimbursement scheme in place since 

that time does not fully address the 

question of what costs should be 

reimbursable when financial 

institutions retrieve electronically 

stored records and then produce them 

in a digital format, rather than on paper. 

The current regulation permits 

computer time to be reimbursed, but 

only if separately itemized. Most 

financial institutions do not engage in 

that task, so computer time is typically 

not charged separately. The 

amendments proposed below do not 

change this aspect of the regulation, but 

instead recognize a new personnel 

category for computer specialists when 

more specialized assistance is 

necessary. The revised fee schedule also 

updates the fees that a financial 

institution may charge to account for 

changes in personnel costs for existing 

job categories. Finally, the revised fee 

schedule includes a ‘‘per electronic 

production’’ flat charge, rather than the 

‘‘per diskette’’ charge included in the 

existing regulation. The amendments 

also include a provision that would 

permit reimbursement on a per page 

basis for production of information only 

if the government agency requested 

production on paper, so that 

unnecessary costs are not incurred by 

the financial institution or the 

government. 

Updating the Existing Labor Rates. 

Under the existing regulation, the 

personnel fees chargeable in Appendix 

A, which are intended to cover the cost 

of searching for, processing and 

producing financial records stored 

electronically, on paper or on 

microfiche, are separated into two labor 

categories—clerical/technical and 

manager/supervisory. The fees for these 

categories were originally derived from 

the 1994 Bank Cash Compensation 

Survey (BCCS), which is produced by 

the Banking Administration Institute. 

Although the BCCS is still in existence, 

the Board proposes to update the fees 

using comparable data maintained by 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as 

generated by the Occupational 

Employment Statistics Program. BLS 

provides an aggregate of data taken from 

2004 to 2007. Unlike the BCCS, the BLS 

sample size is comprehensive and, 

therefore, reduces the risk of having an 

unrepresentative sample. 

The Board proposes to update the 

current managerial/supervisory rate 

found in Appendix A ($17.00) using the 

rate for first-line supervisors/managers 

of office found in the BLS industry 

category known as Credit 

Intermediation and Related Activities 

($22.02) adjusted for benefits using the 

standard benefit formula set out in the 

BLS survey (32.2%). This result in a $30 

per hour charge (rounded to the next 

highest dollar). The Board also proposes 

to update the rate for the clerical/ 

technical job category found in 

Appendix A ($11.00) to the average of 

the rates established for Information 

Records Clerk and Computer Operator 

found within the same BLS industry 

category ($16.09), adjusted for benefits 

(32.2%). This results in a $22 per hour 

charge (rounded to the next highest 

dollar). The Board is interested in 

receiving comments on the updated 

rates and the method of calculation. 

New Labor Rate for Specialized 

Computer Support. It is expected that, 

from time to time, the government will 

request financial institutions to 

reproduce electronically stored records 

in a format that requires more 

specialized computer expertise than 

would ordinarily be part of the job 

responsibilities of a clerical/technical 

employee, or of a manager/supervisor. 

Therefore, the Board proposes to add a 

new job category to the fee schedule that 

would allow financial institutions to 

charge for any additional technical 

assistance that is needed to locate, 

retrieve, prepare or reproduce 

electronically stored financial records. 

Under this new job category financial 

institutions may charge a rate of $28.00 

per hour. This figure is based on the 

labor cost associated with employing a 

person under the computer support 

specialist job category found in the BLS 

industry category known as Credit 

Intermediation and Related Activities 

($22.03), as adjusted for benefits 

(32.2%). This results in a charge of $30 

per hour (rounded to the next highest 

dollar). 

The Board is interested in receiving 

comments on the newly proposed rate 

for specialized computer support for 

electronic document productions. It is 

difficult to establish rates to be applied 

across all geographic regions and to all 

depository institutions, regardless of 

size. While recognizing this difficulty, 

the Board nevertheless proposes a 

uniform rate in the belief that 

administration of a complex fee 

schedule would be difficult. 

Automatic Labor Rate Adjustment. 

The proposed regulation also includes a 

mechanism to periodically adjust the 

Search and Processing reimbursement 

rates for personnel costs set out in the 

fee schedule, based on changes in the 

BLS compensation survey data. The 

proposed mechanism would adjust the 

hourly rates contained in the fee 

schedule at fixed five-year periods, 

using the most recent data available for 

each job category. The Board is 

interested in receiving comments on the 

mechanism chosen. If the automatic 

adjustment is adopted, the Board 

intends to issue a press release setting 

out the new rates before they become 

effective and making technical changes 

to the fee schedule for the convenience 

of the industry. 

(c) Reproduction Costs. The Board 

believes the reproduction rates for 

diskettes ($5.00) should be eliminated. 

Instead, the Board proposes to allow 

financial institutions to charge a flat fee 

of $5.00 per request to cover cost of all 

compact disks, other electronic media, 

or e-mail transmissions necessary to 

respond to a request. The Board also 

requests comments on whether the 

inclusion of fees for microfiche 

duplication should be eliminated as 

outdated. 

While financial institutions may 

continue to seek reimbursement for 

photocopies at the existing rate ($.25 per 

page), § 219.3(c), this fee would only be 

chargeable when: (1) The institution is 

merely reproducing information that is 

already stored only in paper form, or (2) 

where the party making the request has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
47856 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

specifically asked for printed copies of 

information that is stored electronically. 

The Board welcomes comments on 

the appropriateness of the proposed fees 

and any suggested alternative methods 

of determining the fees. 

II. Conditions for Payment 

This section is being changed to 

identify the direct costs that may be 

charged when a financial institution 

produces financial records in paper, 

electronic form or both. As explained 

above, photocopying and microfiche 

charges are only applicable if the 

institution has reproduced financial 

records that are not maintained 

electronically (i.e., on paper or in 

microfiche), or where the government 

authority making the request has 

specifically asked for printed copies of 

electronically stored information. 

Solicitation of Comments Regarding the 

Use of ‘‘Plain Language’’

Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act of 1999 requires the Board to 

use ‘‘plain language’’ in all proposed 

and final rules published after January 

1, 2000. The Board invites comments on 

whether the proposed rules are clearly 

stated and effectively organized, and 

how the Board might make the proposed 

text easier to understand. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605, the Board 

certifies that this proposed rule, if 

adopted, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

rule confers a benefit on financial 

institutions, including small financial 

institutions, by providing for 

reimbursement of certain costs incurred 

in complying with a requirement to 

assemble and reproduce financial 

records. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 

3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the 

Board reviewed the proposed rule under 

the authority delegated to the Board by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

No collections of information pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act are 

contained in the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 219 

Banks, Banking, Currency, Federal 

Reserve System, Foreign banking, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 12 CFR part 219 is proposed 

to be amended as set forth below. 

PART 219—REIMBURSEMENT FOR 

PROVIDING FINANCIAL RECORDS; 

RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 

FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS 

(REGULATION S) 

1. The authority citation for part 219 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3415. 

2. Section 219.3 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(2). 

b. Add new paragraph (b)(3). 

c. Revise paragraphs (c) and (d), and 

Appendix A to § 219.3. 

§ 219.3 Cost reimbursement. 

(a) Fees payable. Except as provided 

in § 219.4, a government authority 

seeking access to financial records 

pertaining to a customer, by written 

request, through: A court order, a 

subpoena issued pursuant to the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure or the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or 

other agency administrative procedures, 

including administrative subpoenas, 

voluntary requests, or other process 

shall reimburse the financial institution 

for reasonably necessary costs directly 

incurred in searching for, reproducing 

or transporting books, papers, records, 

or other data as set forth in this section. 

The reimbursement schedule for a 

financial institution is set forth in 

Appendix A to this section. If a 

financial institution has financial 

records that are stored at an 

independent storage facility that charges 

a fee to search for, reproduce, or 

transport particular records requested, 

these costs are considered to be directly 

incurred by the financial institution and 

may be included in the reimbursement. 

(b) * * * 

(2) If itemized separately, search and 

processing costs may include the actual 

cost of extracting electronically stored 

records, based on computer time and 

necessary supplies; however, personnel 

time for computer searches may be paid 

for at the rates set for computer support 

specialist, specified in Appendix A to 

this section, but only when compliance 

with the request for information 

requires that the financial institution 

use programming or other higher level 

technical services of a computer support 

specialist in order to reproduce 

electronically stored information in the 

format requested by the government 

authority. 

(3) Rates for Search and Processing in 

Appendix A shall be recalculated as 

follows on April 1, 2012 and on April 

1 of each subsequent five-year period 

utilizing Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘BLS’’) data by replacing the existing 

hourly rates with the sum of: 

(i) Base Labor rate recalculation—

Using the most recently available wage 

data from the Occupational 

Employment Statistics program (http:// 

www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm) for the BLS 

industry category ‘‘Credit 

Intermediation and Related Activities’’

(NAICS Code Number 522000) (or 

successor category): 

(A) [Clerical/Technical category] the 

average of the median hourly rates for 

the ‘‘Information and Records Clerk’’

and ‘‘Computer Operator’’ job categories 

(SOC Code Number 43–4199 and 43–

9011) (or any successor job categories); 

(B) [Manager/Supervisor category] the 

median hourly rate for the ‘‘first-line 

supervisors/managers of office’’ job 

category (SOC Code Number 43–1011) 

(or successor category), and 

(C) [Computer Support Specialist 

category] the median hourly rate for the 

‘‘computer support specialist’’ job 

category (SOC Code Number 15–1041) 

(or successor category); plus 

(ii) Benefits Adjustment—an amount 

for each hourly rate category that is 

equal to the product of: 

(A) The hourly rates set forth in 

paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, and 

(B) The most recently available 

‘‘percent of total compensation’’

represented by ‘‘total benefits’’ for the 

‘‘Credit Intermediation and Related 

Activities’’ industry category (private 

sector) set out in the Employment Cost 

Trends section of the National 

Compensation Survey (http:// 

data.bls.gov/PDQ/ 

outside.jsp?survey=cm); and 

(iii) If the recalculated rates for Search 

and Processing (including the Base labor 

rate and the benefits adjustment) are not 

a multiple of $1, the recalculated rates 

shall be rounded up to the next multiple 

of $1. 

(c) Reproduction costs. The 

reimbursement rates for reproduction 

costs for requested information are set 

forth in Appendix A to this section, 

subject to the Conditions for Payment 

set forth in § 219.5. Copies of 

photographs, films and other materials 

not listed in Appendix A to this section 

are reimbursed at actual cost. 

(d) Transportation costs. 

Reimbursement for transportation costs 

shall be for the reasonably necessary 

costs directly incurred to transport 

personnel to locate and retrieve the 

requested information, and to convey 

such material to the place of 

examination. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 47857 

Appendix A to § 219.3—Reimbursement 

Schedule 

Reproduction: 

Photocopy, per page ................. $0.25 

Paper Copies of Microfiche, 

per frame ............................... 0.25 

Duplicate Microfiche, per 

microfiche ............................. 0.50 

Electronic Productions, per request ...................................... 5.00 

Search and Processing: 

Clerical/Technical, hourly rate 22.00 

Computer Support Specialist, 

hourly rate ............................. 30.00 

Manager/Supervisory, hourly 

rate ......................................... 30.00 

3. Section 219.5 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 219.5 Conditions for payment. 

(a) Direct costs. Payment shall be 

made only for costs that are both 

directly incurred and reasonably 

necessary to provide requested material. 

Search and processing, reproduction, 

and transportation costs shall be 

considered separately when 

determining whether the costs are 

reasonably necessary. Photocopying or 

microfiche charges are reasonably 

necessary only if the institution has 

reproduced financial records that were 

not stored electronically (i.e., where the 

information requested was stored only 

on paper or in microfiche), or where the 

government authority making the 

request has specifically asked for 

printed copies of electronically stored 

records. 

* * * * * 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, August 12, 2008. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E8–18898 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26135; Notice No. 

08–08] 

RIN 2120–AI79 

Filtered Flight Data 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its 

proposal to prohibit the filtering of some 

original flight recorder sensor signals. 

Comments to the NPRM published in 

November 2006 and changes in 

available technology have caused us to 

reexamine our position on data filtering. 

We are now proposing that certain 

critical data parameters may be filtered 

if a certificate holder can show that the 

data can be accurately reconstructed. 

This proposed rule would improve the 

integrity and quality of the data 

recorded on digital flight data recorders 

while giving aircraft designers and 

operators more flexibility in system 

design and operation where allowable, 

including an option to filter data. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before November 13, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA–

2006–26135 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. For more 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets. This 

includes the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for accessing the 

docket. Or, go to the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

of the West Building Ground Floor at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Brian A. Verna, 

Avionics Systems Branch, Aircraft 

Certification Service, AIR–130, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

385–4643; fax (202) 385–4651; e-mail 

brian.verna@faa.gov. For legal questions 

concerning this proposed rule contact 

Karen L. Petronis, Senior Attorney for 

Regulations, Regulations Division, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC–200, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; fax 202–267–7971; e-mail 

karen.petronis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

This discussion includes related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue aviation 

safety rules is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations 

providing minimum standards for other 

practices, methods and procedures 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority since flight data recorders 

are the only means available to account 

for aircraft movement and flight crew 

actions critical to finding the probable 

cause of incidents or accidents, 

including data that could prevent future 

incidents or accidents. 

I. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

During several aircraft accident 

investigations, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or 

Board) found that some flight data 

recorder systems were filtering flight 

recorder parameter signals before they 

were recorded. As a result, the recorded 

data did not accurately reflect the 

aircraft’s performance or the movements 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS