Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issue Area-New Task, 14284-14286 [E6-4024]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 14284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 2006 / Notices by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. Specific limitations with respect to FAA’s approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR part 150, 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA regional office in Hawthorne, California. The Santa Barbara Airport submitted to the FAA on April 8, 2004, the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from March 2004 through January 2005. The Santa Barbara Airport noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on June 28, 2004. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40452). The Santa Barbara Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from January 2005 to (or beyond) the year 2008. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on August 3, 2005 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program. The submitted program contained twenty (20) proposed actions for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:01 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 208001 substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective January 27, 2006. Outright approval was granted for one Noise Abatement element, ten Land Use Management elements and all four Program Management elements. Three Noise Abatement elements were disapproved and one element required no federal action. One Land Use Management element was disapproved in part pending submission of additional information. The approved measures included such items as: Promote use of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Noise Awareness Steps by light single and twin-engine aircraft; Encourage Santa Barbara County to enact the noise overlay zoning recommendations contained within County’s general plan; Encourage the City of Goleta to incorporate land use regulations or restrictions within the Airport Influence Area; Encourage the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments to revise the Airport Land Use Plan; City of Santa Barbara should adopt project review guidelines to specify noise compatibility criteria for development within the Airport Influence Area; Maintain the current compatible land use zoning within the 2008 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour; City of Santa Barbara should enact overlay zoning to provide noise compatibility use standards within the Airport Influence Area; Encourage the City of Goleta and Santa Barbara County to require noise and avigation easements as a condition of subdivision approval for those areas contained within Zones One, Two and Three of the proposed zoning ordinance; City of Santa Barbara should amend its current building codes to incorporate prescriptive noise standards and encourage the City of Goleta and Santa Barbara County to incorporate similar building code amendments; Consideration should be given to establishing a voluntary acquisition program for dwellings located within the 65 to 75 CNEL; Consideration should be given to voluntary acquisition of the residential development rights for portions of two large parcels located east of the airport; Continue noise abatement information program; Update and expand noise and flight track monitoring system; Monitor implementation of the updated Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and Update Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program, as necessary, at minimum every seven to ten years to PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 respond to the changing conditions in the local area and the aviation industry. These determinations are set forth in detail in the Record of Approval signed by the Associate Administrator for Airports on January 27, 2006. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Santa Barbara Airport. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/ airports_airtraffic/airports/ environmental/airport_noise/. Issued in Hawthorne, California on March 8, 2006. Mark A. McClardy, Manager, Airports Division, Western—Pacific Region, AWP–600. [FR Doc. 06–2666 Filed 3–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issue Area—New Task Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA assigned a new task to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to develop a recommendation that will help the FAA establish standardized criteria and guidance for conducting airplane-level safety assessments of critical systems. This notice is to inform the public of this ARAC activity. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linh Le, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM– 117), Northwest Mountain Region Headquarters, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056; telephone: (425) 227–1105; fax: 425–227–1320; e-mail: linh.le@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA’s rulemaking activities for aviationrelated issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA’s commitments to harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its partners in Europe and E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 2006 / Notices Canada. Previous ARAC harmonization working groups (Flight Controls, Powerplant Installations, and Systems Design and Analysis) produced varying recommendations regarding the safety of critical airplane systems. Although the subject of specific risk analysis was addressed in those working groups, the recommendations were not consistent. Regulations developed from within the FAA also provide approaches different from those recommended by ARAC. The term ‘‘specific risk’’ refers to the risk to which an airplane is exposed under certain conditions (for example, after a latent failure), as distinguished from average risk. If these different approaches are applied on a typical certification project, they could result in nonstandardized system safety assessments across various critical systems. This could cause conflicting interpretations for conducting system safety assessments in future airplane certification programs. After reviewing the existing regulations and the recommendations from the various harmonization-working groups, the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, along with the European, Canadian, and Brazilian civil aviation authorities, identified a need to clarify and standardize safety assessment criteria. The FAA decided to use a new ARAC tasking to integrate the safety assessment criteria from various system disciplines. In July 2005, an industry group comprised of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and several airplane and engine manufacturers, proposed a new tasking. The FAA agrees with the industry group proposal, and has based this tasking on that proposal. ARAC will address the task under the Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Issues Group. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES The Task This tasking will direct ARAC to provide information about specific risk assessment and make recommendations for revising requirements or guidance material as appropriate. The TAE Issues Group will establish a new ‘‘Airplanelevel Safety Analysis Working Group’’ (ASAWG) to perform the following tasks: Task 1 The ASAWG will establish a definition for specific risk. It will provide relevant examples of its application in today’s airplane certification, FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB), and Maintenance Review Board (MRB) VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:01 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 208001 activities. These examples will aid in the correct and concise understanding of specific risk. Task 2 The ASAWG will review the background and intent of relevant existing requirements, existing guidance material, and ARAC recommendations and explain how specific risk is addressed. In Task 2, the ASAWG will document all current and proposed approaches to specific risk but will not establish how specific risk should be assessed. The outcome of this task will be a report describing how specific risk is currently assessed and managed, by currently available regulatory guidance and by actual practice in recent certification programs. The report will also address how any regulations and associated guidance material proposed by ARAC would manage specific risk. For the relevant ARAC proposals, the report will include the intended improvements and safety benefits of the recommended changes. The approaches and rationale used in airplane-level safety analysis for the following aspects will be reviewed and documented in the report: Latent Failures The Task 2 report will document acceptance criteria for the ‘‘significant latent failures’’ highlighted in paragraph 9.c.6 of the proposed ARAC Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1309—‘‘Draft ARSENAL version,’’ dated 6/10/2002. The report will document the following aspects: 1. Criteria used for selecting failure conditions worthy of consideration (for example, significant latent failure conditions that are not extremely remote as cited in 14 CFR 25.981.) 2. Acceptability of the next most critical failure on safe operation. As part of this consideration, the report will document the approach used to establish whether a significant latent failure should be allowed to leave the airplane one failure away from a catastrophic condition. If it is allowable, the report will identify the acceptance criteria. Examples of acceptance criteria may be critical component integrity criteria and instructions for continued airworthiness that will include a standard procedure for identification and control of the maintenance tasks required to periodically check the status of the latent failure. 3. Failure probability assumptions and methods of substantiation 4. Criteria for determining allowable exposure times 5. Criteria for limiting the exposure times PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14285 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) The report will document the approaches to determine: 1. Acceptability of next most critical failure on safe operation 2. Crew limitations and procedures 3. Reliability of critical components 4. Allowable exposure time Airplane Configuration, Flight Conditions and Design Variations Flight phase. Maximum flight time vs. average flight time. Average diversion time vs. maximum allowed diversion time. Task 3 The ASAWG will review the results of Tasks 1 & 2 and determine the appropriateness and adequacy of existing and proposed airworthiness standards for airplane-level safety analysis. This task will demonstrate if a more consistent approach across systems is necessary. The ASAWG will report its findings from Task 3 to the TAE Issues Group. Concurrence from the TAE Issues Group and the FAA is required before continuing to Task 4. Task 4 The ASAWG will develop a report containing recommendations for rulemaking or guidance material and explain the rationale and safety benefits for each proposed change. The report will define a standardized approach for applying specific risk in the appropriate circumstances. The FAA will define the report format to ensure the report contains the necessary information for developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and/or ACs. Task 4 is contingent on the results of the analyses done in Task 3. If an NPRM or proposed AC is published for public comment as a result of the recommendations from this tasking, the FAA may ask ARAC to review all public comments received and provide a recommendation for disposition of comments for each issue. Schedule 1. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results from its Task 1 activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than August 21, 2006. 2. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results of its Task 2 activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than February 21, 2007. 3. A report describing the results of Task 3 from ASAWG to TAE Issues Group is required no later than November 21, 2007. E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 14286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 2006 / Notices 4. The final report containing the ASAWG’s recommendations to the FAA is required no later than May 21, 2008. Completion of this task is required no later than May 21, 2008. Any deviations from this schedule must be requested by the ASAWG and approved by the TAE Issues Group. ARAC Acceptance of Task ARAC accepted the task and assigned it to the TAE Issues Group’s newly formed ASAWG. The working group serves as staff to ARAC and assists in the analysis of assigned tasks. ARAC must review and approve the working group’s recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group’s recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA. The FAA will submit the recommendations it receives to the agency’s Rulemaking Management Council to address the availability of resources and prioritization. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Working Group Activity The ASAWG must comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group must: 1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting of the TAE Issues Group held following publication of this notice. 2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations before continuing with the work stated in item 3 below. 3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any other related materials or documents. 4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC TAE Issues Group. Participation in the Working Group The ASAWG will be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the TAE Issue Group. The ASAWG membership will have broad system safety experience. As needed, the ASAWG may organize, oversee, guide, and monitor the activities and progress of task groups comprised of subject matter experts (SMEs). A task group member needs not be a representative or a member of the full ASAWG. The ASAWG Chair will select the membership for both the ASAWG and its task groups, with concurrence of the TAE Issues Group Assistant Chair and TAE Issues Group Assistant Executive Director. The SMEs will address individual issues and will be invited to present their views and positions for consideration by the task VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:01 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 208001 groups or by the ASAWG. This allows for an optimum ASAWG group size with appropriate representation to achieve informed consensus and foster successful completion of the task. This also allows the participation of a large number of cross-functional SMEs, such as those from the Systems, Flight Controls, Powerplants, Structures, and Flight Operations harmonization working groups. The ASAWG members should have the appropriate subject matter knowledge, broad system safety experience and responsibility within their organization, and authority to represent their respective part of the aviation community. ASAWG members should: 1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure analysis methodologies; 2. Have the appropriate knowledge to evaluate the likely impacts on safety, airplane system designs, manufacturing, operation, and maintenance following adoption of any relevant ARAC recommendation; 3. Have proficient knowledge of existing methods of compliance to one or more of the following relevant sections of 14 CFR: 25.671, 25.901, 25.933, 25.981, 25.1309, 25.1529, 33.28, 33.75, including JAR MMEL/MEL 0–10; and 4. Have a commitment to communicate with interested parties to establish a common understanding of all issues, and facilitate developing consensus explanations. Task Group Members Should: 1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure analysis methodologies; 2. Have hands-on experience in existing methods of compliance to one or more of the relevant sections of 14 CFR listed above; and 3. Have the appropriate backgrounds to explain to the ASAWG the rationales behind one or more of the relevant ARAC proposals (25.671, AC 25.901X, AC 25.933X, AC 25.1309—‘‘Draft ARSENAL version,’’ 33.75) as they pertain to latent failures and the MMEL. Invited experts should have the knowledge appropriate to the subjects of interest, as determined by the task groups or ASAWG. In addition to industry representatives and the FAA, representatives from the European Aviation Safety Agency ´ (EASA), Brazil’s Centro Tecnico Aeroespecial (CTA), and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) are invited to participate. The working group and task group membership and size will be optimized to ensure credibility of representation and to PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 facilitate efficiently accomplishing the tasking. If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a member of the working group, contact the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group. We must receive all requests by April 25, 2006. The assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chairs will review the requests and advise you whether your request is approved. If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in the working group by attending all meetings and providing written comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions don’t conflict with your sponsoring organization’s position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law. Meetings of the ARAC are open to the public. Meetings of the ASAWG will not be open to the public, except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2006. Anthony F. Fazio, Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E6–4024 Filed 3–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14284-14286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and 
Engine Issue Area--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned a new task to the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to develop a recommendation that will help the FAA 
establish standardized criteria and guidance for conducting airplane-
level safety assessments of critical systems. This notice is to inform 
the public of this ARAC activity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linh Le, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-117), Northwest 
Mountain Region Headquarters, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone: (425) 227-1105; fax: 425-227-1320; e-mail: 
linh.le@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to 
provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the 
FAA's rulemaking activities for aviation-related issues. This includes 
obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitments to 
harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its 
partners in Europe and

[[Page 14285]]

Canada. Previous ARAC harmonization working groups (Flight Controls, 
Powerplant Installations, and Systems Design and Analysis) produced 
varying recommendations regarding the safety of critical airplane 
systems. Although the subject of specific risk analysis was addressed 
in those working groups, the recommendations were not consistent. 
Regulations developed from within the FAA also provide approaches 
different from those recommended by ARAC. The term ``specific risk'' 
refers to the risk to which an airplane is exposed under certain 
conditions (for example, after a latent failure), as distinguished from 
average risk.
    If these different approaches are applied on a typical 
certification project, they could result in nonstandardized system 
safety assessments across various critical systems. This could cause 
conflicting interpretations for conducting system safety assessments in 
future airplane certification programs. After reviewing the existing 
regulations and the recommendations from the various harmonization-
working groups, the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, along with the 
European, Canadian, and Brazilian civil aviation authorities, 
identified a need to clarify and standardize safety assessment 
criteria. The FAA decided to use a new ARAC tasking to integrate the 
safety assessment criteria from various system disciplines. In July 
2005, an industry group comprised of the Aerospace Industries 
Association (AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 
and several airplane and engine manufacturers, proposed a new tasking. 
The FAA agrees with the industry group proposal, and has based this 
tasking on that proposal. ARAC will address the task under the 
Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Issues Group.

The Task

    This tasking will direct ARAC to provide information about specific 
risk assessment and make recommendations for revising requirements or 
guidance material as appropriate. The TAE Issues Group will establish a 
new ``Airplane-level Safety Analysis Working Group'' (ASAWG) to perform 
the following tasks:

Task 1

    The ASAWG will establish a definition for specific risk. It will 
provide relevant examples of its application in today's airplane 
certification, FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB), and 
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) activities. These examples will aid in 
the correct and concise understanding of specific risk.

Task 2

    The ASAWG will review the background and intent of relevant 
existing requirements, existing guidance material, and ARAC 
recommendations and explain how specific risk is addressed. In Task 2, 
the ASAWG will document all current and proposed approaches to specific 
risk but will not establish how specific risk should be assessed. The 
outcome of this task will be a report describing how specific risk is 
currently assessed and managed, by currently available regulatory 
guidance and by actual practice in recent certification programs. The 
report will also address how any regulations and associated guidance 
material proposed by ARAC would manage specific risk. For the relevant 
ARAC proposals, the report will include the intended improvements and 
safety benefits of the recommended changes. The approaches and 
rationale used in airplane-level safety analysis for the following 
aspects will be reviewed and documented in the report:

Latent Failures

    The Task 2 report will document acceptance criteria for the 
``significant latent failures'' highlighted in paragraph 9.c.6 of the 
proposed ARAC Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1309--``Draft ARSENAL 
version,'' dated 6/10/2002. The report will document the following 
aspects:
    1. Criteria used for selecting failure conditions worthy of 
consideration (for example, significant latent failure conditions that 
are not extremely remote as cited in 14 CFR 25.981.)
    2. Acceptability of the next most critical failure on safe 
operation. As part of this consideration, the report will document the 
approach used to establish whether a significant latent failure should 
be allowed to leave the airplane one failure away from a catastrophic 
condition. If it is allowable, the report will identify the acceptance 
criteria. Examples of acceptance criteria may be critical component 
integrity criteria and instructions for continued airworthiness that 
will include a standard procedure for identification and control of the 
maintenance tasks required to periodically check the status of the 
latent failure.
    3. Failure probability assumptions and methods of substantiation
    4. Criteria for determining allowable exposure times
    5. Criteria for limiting the exposure times

Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)

    The report will document the approaches to determine:
    1. Acceptability of next most critical failure on safe operation
    2. Crew limitations and procedures
    3. Reliability of critical components
    4. Allowable exposure time

Airplane Configuration, Flight Conditions and Design Variations

    Flight phase.
    Maximum flight time vs. average flight time.
    Average diversion time vs. maximum allowed diversion time.

Task 3

    The ASAWG will review the results of Tasks 1 & 2 and determine the 
appropriateness and adequacy of existing and proposed airworthiness 
standards for airplane-level safety analysis. This task will 
demonstrate if a more consistent approach across systems is necessary. 
The ASAWG will report its findings from Task 3 to the TAE Issues Group. 
Concurrence from the TAE Issues Group and the FAA is required before 
continuing to Task 4.

Task 4

    The ASAWG will develop a report containing recommendations for 
rulemaking or guidance material and explain the rationale and safety 
benefits for each proposed change. The report will define a 
standardized approach for applying specific risk in the appropriate 
circumstances. The FAA will define the report format to ensure the 
report contains the necessary information for developing a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and/or ACs. Task 4 is contingent on the 
results of the analyses done in Task 3.
    If an NPRM or proposed AC is published for public comment as a 
result of the recommendations from this tasking, the FAA may ask ARAC 
to review all public comments received and provide a recommendation for 
disposition of comments for each issue.

Schedule

    1. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results from its Task 1 
activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than August 21, 2006.
    2. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results of its Task 2 
activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than February 21, 2007.
    3. A report describing the results of Task 3 from ASAWG to TAE 
Issues Group is required no later than November 21, 2007.

[[Page 14286]]

    4. The final report containing the ASAWG's recommendations to the 
FAA is required no later than May 21, 2008.
    Completion of this task is required no later than May 21, 2008. Any 
deviations from this schedule must be requested by the ASAWG and 
approved by the TAE Issues Group.

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    ARAC accepted the task and assigned it to the TAE Issues Group's 
newly formed ASAWG. The working group serves as staff to ARAC and 
assists in the analysis of assigned tasks. ARAC must review and approve 
the working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working 
group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA. The FAA will 
submit the recommendations it receives to the agency's Rulemaking 
Management Council to address the availability of resources and 
prioritization.

Working Group Activity

    The ASAWG must comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part 
of the procedures, the working group must:
    1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the 
rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting 
of the TAE Issues Group held following publication of this notice.
    2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed 
recommendations before continuing with the work stated in item 3 below.
    3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any 
other related materials or documents.
    4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC TAE Issues 
Group.

Participation in the Working Group

    The ASAWG will be comprised of technical experts having an interest 
in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a 
representative or a member of the TAE Issue Group. The ASAWG membership 
will have broad system safety experience. As needed, the ASAWG may 
organize, oversee, guide, and monitor the activities and progress of 
task groups comprised of subject matter experts (SMEs). A task group 
member needs not be a representative or a member of the full ASAWG. The 
ASAWG Chair will select the membership for both the ASAWG and its task 
groups, with concurrence of the TAE Issues Group Assistant Chair and 
TAE Issues Group Assistant Executive Director. The SMEs will address 
individual issues and will be invited to present their views and 
positions for consideration by the task groups or by the ASAWG. This 
allows for an optimum ASAWG group size with appropriate representation 
to achieve informed consensus and foster successful completion of the 
task. This also allows the participation of a large number of cross-
functional SMEs, such as those from the Systems, Flight Controls, 
Powerplants, Structures, and Flight Operations harmonization working 
groups. The ASAWG members should have the appropriate subject matter 
knowledge, broad system safety experience and responsibility within 
their organization, and authority to represent their respective part of 
the aviation community. ASAWG members should:
    1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure 
analysis methodologies;
    2. Have the appropriate knowledge to evaluate the likely impacts on 
safety, airplane system designs, manufacturing, operation, and 
maintenance following adoption of any relevant ARAC recommendation;
    3. Have proficient knowledge of existing methods of compliance to 
one or more of the following relevant sections of 14 CFR: 25.671, 
25.901, 25.933, 25.981, 25.1309, 25.1529, 33.28, 33.75, including JAR 
MMEL/MEL 0-10; and
    4. Have a commitment to communicate with interested parties to 
establish a common understanding of all issues, and facilitate 
developing consensus explanations.
    Task Group Members Should:
    1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure 
analysis methodologies;
    2. Have hands-on experience in existing methods of compliance to 
one or more of the relevant sections of 14 CFR listed above; and
    3. Have the appropriate backgrounds to explain to the ASAWG the 
rationales behind one or more of the relevant ARAC proposals (25.671, 
AC 25.901X, AC 25.933X, AC 25.1309--``Draft ARSENAL version,'' 33.75) 
as they pertain to latent failures and the MMEL.
    Invited experts should have the knowledge appropriate to the 
subjects of interest, as determined by the task groups or ASAWG.
    In addition to industry representatives and the FAA, 
representatives from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), 
Brazil's Centro T[eacute]cnico Aeroespecial (CTA), and Transport Canada 
Civil Aviation (TCCA) are invited to participate. The working group and 
task group membership and size will be optimized to ensure credibility 
of representation and to facilitate efficiently accomplishing the 
tasking.
    If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a 
member of the working group, contact the person listed under the 
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Describe your interest in the 
task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group. We 
must receive all requests by April 25, 2006. The assistant chair, the 
assistant executive director, and the working group chairs will review 
the requests and advise you whether your request is approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must 
represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in 
the working group by attending all meetings and providing written 
comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources 
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned 
deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may 
represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure 
the proposed technical solutions don't conflict with your sponsoring 
organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented 
to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun deliberations, 
members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the 
assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working 
group chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and 
use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
    Meetings of the ARAC are open to the public. Meetings of the ASAWG 
will not be open to the public, except to the extent individuals with 
an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will 
make no public announcement of working group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2006.
Anthony F. Fazio,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E6-4024 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P