HomeMy WebLinkAboutElizabeth Field, Fishers Island - General CorrespondenceJames W. Leana, P. E.
Airport Division
Calocerinos 8 Spina Engineers, P.C.
1020 Seventh North Street
Liverpool NY 13088-6199
Mr. Philip Brito, Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
181 South Franklin Avenue, Room 305
Valley Stream NY 11581
James A. Kuzloski, Regional Director
NYS Department of Transportation
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge NY 11788
Mr. Robert Michaud
Director, Aviation Development
Aviation Division
NYS Department of Transportation
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany NY 12232
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 5, 2003
Thomas F. Doherty, Manager
Fishers Island Ferry District
Post Office Box H
Fishers Island, New York 06390
Dear Mr. Doherty:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown. northfork.net
I had originally sent this out on August 20, 2003. I don't know what happened to them.
However, I had the Supervisor and Town Attorney re-sign them and sent the out again with the
original letter. Please e-mail me to let me know that you received your copy. Thank you. Have a
good week.
Cc: Town Comptroller
Town Attorney
Very truly yours,
04-
13444 L? P,�4aa
ElizAeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
1
i
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 20, 2003
Mr. Philip Brito, Manager
New York Airports District Office
600 Old Country Road, Suite 446
Garden City, New York 11530
Dear Mr. Brito:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown. northfork. net
Enclosed please find three (3) original copies of the Grant Offer in response to Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Project No. 3-36-0029-10-03 at Elizabeth Field Airport at
Fishers Island, New York which have been signed by Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton and
certified by our Town Attorney Gregory F. Yakaboski.
If you need any further copies, please contact my office at 631765-1800.
Enclosure
cc: Town Comptroller
Town Attorney
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Date of Offer 8/6/2003
Project Number 3-36-0029-10-03
RECIPIENT: Town of Southold (Herein called Sponsor)
AIRPORT: Elizabeth Field Airport, Fisher's Island, NY
OFFER
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay,
as the United States' share of 90 percent of the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the project consisting of the following:
Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, including Tractor with 84 Inch front plow blade; 59 inch snow blower attachment and a Truck with power
winch and complete snowplow package
See Attached Special Conditions
as more particularly described in the Project Application dated 7/14/03
The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this Offer shall be $150,000
For the purpose of any future grant amendments which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the United States under provisions of
Section 47108(b) of Title 49 U.S.C., the following amounts are being specified for this purpose:
$150,000 for airport development,
for land, and
for planning.
This offer is made in accordance with and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, herein called Title
49 U.S.C. Acceptance and execution of this offershall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by Title 49 U.S.C., constituting the
contractual obligations and rights of the United States and the Sponsor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Manager Ai rts District Office
ORIGINAL.
GRANT AGREEMENT
U. S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviat/on
Administration
Date of Offer 8/6/2003
Project Number 3-36-0029-10-03
RECIPIENT: Town of Southold (Herein called Sponsor)
AIRPORT: Elizabeth Field Airport, Fisher's Island, NY
OFFER
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay,
as the United States' share of 90 percent of the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the project consisting of the following:
Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, including Tractor with 84 Inch front plow blade; 59 inch snow blower attachment and a Truck with power
winch and complete snowplow package
See Attached Special Conditions
as more particularly described in the Project Application dated 7/14/03
The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this Offer shall be $150,000
For the purpose of any future grant amendments which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the United States under provisions of
Section 47108(b) of Title 49 U.S.C., the following amounts are being specified for this purpose:
$150,000 for airport development,
for land, and
for planning.
This offer is made in accordance with and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, herein called Title
49 U.S.C. Acceptance and execution of this offershall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by Title 49 U.S.C., constituting the
contractual obligations and rights of the United States and the Sponsor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Manager Ai rts District Office
Special Conditions
1. The Exhibit "A" set forth in Project Application dated 7/14/03, for AIP
Project No. 3-36-0028-10-03, is incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof.
2. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the
Sponsor shall furnish final plans and specifications and Sponsor certification
for project plans and specifications to the FAA, that no construction work will
be commenced hereunder, and that no contract will be awarded for the
accomplishment of such work until the said certification and final plans and
specifications have been submitted to the FAA, and the parties do further
agree that any reference made in this Grant Offer or in the aforesaid
Application to plans and specifications shall be considered as having
reference to said final plans and specifications as approved.
3. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that a final
determination on the eligibility of the items of work shall be made at the time
the plans and specifications are approved by the FAA.
4. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the
Sponsor shall submit an Engineering Agreement for the professional services
necessary to accomplish this project. The procurement of such professional services
shall be accomplished in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18.
FISc10-03
ACCEPTANCE
The Sponsor agrees to accomplish the project in compliance with the terms and conditions contained herein and in
the document "Master Agreement on Terms and Conditions of Accepting Airport Improvement Program Grants" dated
6/19/2002.
Executed this 12ttbay of August 2003 Town of Southold
Name of Sponsor
44e Signature of Sp sor's esignated Official Representative
Exte . ASSt �. Joshua . Horton Su ervisor Town of Southold
Title Title
CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
I, Gregory F. Yakaboski , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify: That
in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws of the State of
New York . Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement, and
the actions taken by said Sponsor relating thereto, and find that the acceptance thereof by saidSponsor and
Sponsor's official representative has been duly authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and
proper and in accordance with the laws of the said State and Title 49 U.S.C. In addition, for grants involving projects
to be carried out on pr not owned by the Sponsor, there a no legal impediments that will prevent full
performance by th sor. Further, it ism a said Grant Agreement constitutes a legal and binding
obligation of the nsor in a 1 the terms thereof.
Aug„St 17- 2003
Date
Gregory F. Yakaboski, Town Attorney
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION - CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A - GENERAL
1. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No . ............ 20-106
2. Functional or Other Breakout ...................... 3-36-0029-10-03
SECTION B - CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT
Cost Classification
Latest
Use only for revisions
Total
Amount
Required
Approve
Amount
-Adjustment: ,
+ or (=)
1. Administrative expense
$
$
$ $0.00
2. Preliminary expense
$0
3. Land, structures, right-of-way
$0.00
4. Architectural engineering basic fees
$3,000•00
5. Othe r a re hite ctura 19 ng ine a ring fe e s
$0.00
6. Project inspection fees
$0.00
7. Land development
$0
8. Relocation expenses
$0.00
9. Relocation payments to Individuals and businesses
$0
10. Demolition and removal
$0.00
11. Construction and project improvement
$0.00
12. Equipment
$163,667.00
13. Miscellaneous
$0.00
14. Total (Lines 1 through 13)
$166,667.00
15. Estimated Income (if applicable)
$0
16. NetProle ctAmount (Line 14 minus 15)
$166,667.00
17: Less: Ineligible exclusions
$0
18. Add: Contingencies
$0
19. Total ProjectAmt. (Excluding rehabilitation grants)
$166,667.00
20. Federal share requested on Line 19
$150,000.00
21. Add: Rehabilitation grants requested (100 percent)
$0
22. Total Federal grant requested 90%
$150,000.00
23. Grantee share 5%
$8,334.00
24. O the r s h a re s 5%
$8,333.00
25. Total P roje ct (Line s 22, 23, and 24)
$
$
$ $166,667.00
FAA Form 5100-100
Page 4
' DIEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FAA Form 5100-100
Page 5
SECTION C - EXCLUSIONS
26.
Classification
Ineligible for
Participation
Excluded from
Contingency Provision
(2)
a.
$
$
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Totals
$
is
SECTION D - PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON-FEDERAL SHARE
27.
Grantee Share
$ $8,334.00
a. Securities
0
b. Mortgages
0
c. Appropriations (by applicant)
0
d. Bonds
0
e. Tax Levies
0
L Non Cash
0
g. Other (Expla in)
0
h. TOTAL -Grantee Share
$8,334.00
28.
Other Shares
a. State
$8,333.00
b. Other
0
c. Total Other Shares
$8,333.00
29.
TOTAL
$ $16,667.00
SECTION E - REMARKS
FAA Form 5100-100
Page 5
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
O��S�FFO�,�cOG
y�
y Z
�oy�o� oly�
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown. northfork. net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 488 OF 2003
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON AUGUST 12,2003:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton to execute all necessary documents in connection with the
Town of Southold Grant Agreement with the US Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration for the purpose of airport improvement at Fishers Island Elizabeth
Field — Purchase of Snow Removal Equipment.
,
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
US.Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
August 6,2003
Mr. Joshua Y. Horton
Town Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Mr.Horton:
Elizabeth Field Airport, Fisher's Island, NY
AIP Project Number 3-36-0029-10-03
GRANT OFFER
Enclosed are the original and four (4) copies of the grant offer issued in response to your project
application dated 7/14/03 for Airport Improvement Project No. 3-36-0029-10-03 at Elizabeth Field Airport,
Fisher's Island, NY. The grant offer is in the amount of $150,000 for the following project description: Acquire
Snow Removal Equipment, including Tractor with 84 inch front plow blade; 59 inch snow blower attachment and
a Truck with power winch and complete snowplow package.
As you know, the most current version of the "Master Agreement on Terms and Conditions for accepting Airport
Improvement Program Grants" is incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference and becomes binding
upon your execution of the Grant Agreement.
The execution by this agency of Part I — Offer, indicates the intention of the United States to participate in the
allowable costs of the project in an amount not to exceed the maximum obligation of the United States and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth and described herein.
If the terms of the grant offer are satisfactory, you should accept the grant offer prior to August 21,2003
and have your attorney certify that the acceptance complies with the local and state laws and constitutes a legal and
binding obligation on the part of the airport sponsor.
The original and three (3) copies of the executed Grant Agreement should be returned to this office as soon as
possible. Please notify Christine Poppe from this office at (516) 227-3814 as soon as the grant has been fully
executed.
Sincerely,
Philip Brito
Manager
Enclosures
RESOLUTION AUGUST 12, 2003 V-488
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton to execute all necessary documents in connection with the
Town of Southold Grant Agreement with the US Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration for the purpose of airport improvement at Fishers Island Elizabeth
Field — Purchase of Snow Removal Equipment.
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd.
Syracuse, NY 13212
C&S Engineers, Inc.
499 Col, Eileen Collins Blvd.
Syracuse, NY 13212
Attn: Grants Administration
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
March 26, 2003
Mr. Joshua Y. Horton
Town of Southold
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
Apron and Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design)
FAA AIP No. 3-36-0029-09-02
NYS PIN 0913.09
File: 211.008
Enclosed please find the following:
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13.212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
Four copies of Partial Payment Request No. TWO (Form 271), with attached backup
documentation, for your review and appropriate signature.
Four copies of Partial Payment Request No. TWO (Form FIN -190), with attached backup
documentation, for your review and appropriate signature.
Remarks:
Please sign three copies of Form 271, three copies of Form FIN -190 (both pages) and
return them to me for distribution. Keep one copy of each form with backup documentation for your
files.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
A AAa',kLL
Kelli R. Walters A-v�
Grants Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Thomas I. Doherty
John Cushman (w/encl.)
MAR 2 S -!i wn
SUPERVISORS 0'--.1
'0, -)%+VN OF SOUTHO' l r) _---j'
FIN t�i-2b (10/71). STATE OF NEW YORK Comptroller's Number
AC 5033 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION K -
Approved State MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT Certificate Number
Comptroller TWO
PAYEE (Name,Address and Zip Code): FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Town of Southold COST OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE: 03/07/03
Town Hall
As the sponsor's Authorized Representative, I hereby certify that the above information is true and that the funding requested is for a project approved
by the New York State Department of Transportation. The project for which funding is being requested satisfies all requirements and the terms and
conditions of the above listed State Grant Agreement. Additionally, I certify that according to my knowledge and belief, all items and amounts shown on
this application are correct, all work has been preformed and / or all materials supplied and federal reimbursement has been received. (See Attached)
Dater Signature: Title: TOWN SUPERVISOR
NEW YORK STATE USE
Approved Amount: $
ACCEPTED BY - NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AVAILABLE
AUDITS & ACCOUNTS BUREAU - DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Date: By: Date By
PROJECT NUMBER REQUEST PAYMENT
Dept. of Transp. State Number Interim
Voucher Number Federal Date Semi-final Final
P.O. Box 1179
1. Total Expended
$36,263.06
Southold, NY 11971
2. Less non -participating
$0.00
3. Eligible Cost
$36,263.06
4. Less Federal Share
$32,636.75
Payee -Employer Identification
No.
Org. Code
5. Project Cost
$3,626.31
1 1-6003 307
BOO
6. State Share at 50%
$1,813.15
GRANT AGREEMENT
7. Total prior requests
$871.52
State No.
0913.09
Max. State Amt.
$5,500'
8. Amount requested
$941.63
Federal No.
3-36-0029-09-02
Max. Fed. Amt.
$99,000
In accordance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement, the Municipal
Corporation applies for payment as follows:
A
B
C
D E
F
ELIGIBLE
FEDERAL
PROJECT
PRIOR CURRENT
STATE FUNDS
DESCRIPTION
COST
SHARE
COST
PROJECT PROJECT
REQUESTED
INCURRED
(A -B)
COSTS COSTS (C -D)
(50% OF E)*
EQUIPMENT
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00',
$0.00
LAND
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00
CONSTRUCTION
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00
ENGINEERING
$36,263.06
$32,636.75
$3,626.31
$1,743.05; $1,883.26'
$941.63
OTHER
$0.00
$0.00'
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00-
$0.00
$0.00.
$0.00
$0.00' $0.00
$0.00
ADMINISTRATION
$0.00
$0.00'
$0.00
$0.00'1 $0.00
$0.00
TOTALS
$36,263.06
$32,636.75'
$3,626.31
$1,743.05' $1,883.261
$941.63
As the sponsor's Authorized Representative, I hereby certify that the above information is true and that the funding requested is for a project approved
by the New York State Department of Transportation. The project for which funding is being requested satisfies all requirements and the terms and
conditions of the above listed State Grant Agreement. Additionally, I certify that according to my knowledge and belief, all items and amounts shown on
this application are correct, all work has been preformed and / or all materials supplied and federal reimbursement has been received. (See Attached)
Dater Signature: Title: TOWN SUPERVISOR
NEW YORK STATE USE
Approved Amount: $
ACCEPTED BY - NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AVAILABLE
AUDITS & ACCOUNTS BUREAU - DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Date: By: Date By
PROJECT NUMBER REQUEST PAYMENT
Dept. of Transp. State Number Interim
Voucher Number Federal Date Semi-final Final
Federal Aviation Administration - NYADO
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO.: 7. RECIPIENT ACCOUNT OR
OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER:
11-6003307 N/A
9. RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION:
Name: Town of Southold
Town Hall
Address: P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
3-36-0029-09-02
S. PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT
FROM: (Month, day, year) TO: (Month, day, year)
11/29/02 03/07/03
PAYEE: (Where check should be sent if different than item 9)
None:
Address:
11.
Approved by Office of Management
$0.00,
OUTLAY REPORT AND REQUEST FOR
and Budget No. 80-RO181
PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
1. TYPE OF REQUEST:
2. BASIS OF REQUEST:
$32,636.75
XI PARTIAL
X11 CASH
$0.00
FINAL
ACCRUAL
3. FEDERAL SPONSORING AGENCY AND ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENT
4. FEDERAL GRANT OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
5. PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST NO.:
TO WHICH THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED:
NUMBER ASSIGNED BY FEDERAL AGENCY:
$0.00
$0.00',
$0.00
TWO
Federal Aviation Administration - NYADO
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO.: 7. RECIPIENT ACCOUNT OR
OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER:
11-6003307 N/A
9. RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION:
Name: Town of Southold
Town Hall
Address: P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
3-36-0029-09-02
S. PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT
FROM: (Month, day, year) TO: (Month, day, year)
11/29/02 03/07/03
PAYEE: (Where check should be sent if different than item 9)
None:
Address:
11.
STATUS OF FUNDS
$0.00,
$0.00'
$36,263.06
PROGRAMS
- FUNCTIONS
- ACTIVITIES
$0.00
$32,636.75
(u) (b)
_ (C) _
$0.00
$0.00
CLASSIFICATION
Apron and Taxiway St
$32,636.75
$0.00
TOTAL
a. Administrative expense
$0.00
$0.00',
$0.00
$0.00
b. Preliminary expense
$0.00
$0.00',
$0.001
$0.00
c. Land, structures, right-of-way
$0.00
$0.00,
$0.00
$0.00
d. Architectural engineering basic fees
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
e. Other architectural engineering fees
$36,263.06
$0.00
$0.00
$36,263.06
f. Project inspection fees
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
g. Land development
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
It. Relocation expense
$0.00
$0.00'
$0.00
$0.00
i. Relocation payments to individuals and businesses
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
j. Demolition and removal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
k. Construction and project improvement cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
I. Equipment
$0.00
$O.00
$0.00
$0.00
In. Miscellaneous cost
$0.00
$0.00'1
$0.00
$0.00
it. Total cumulative to date (sum of lines a thru m)
$36,263.06
$0.001
$0.00
$36,263.06
o. Deductions for program income
$0.00
$0.00'
$0.00
$0.00
p. Net cumulative to date (Line It minus line o)
$36,263.06'
$0.00,
$0.00'
$36,263.06
q. Federal share to date
$32,636.75
$0.001
$0.00
$32,636.75
r. Rehabilitation grants (100% reimbursement)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
s. Total Federal share (sum of lines q and r)
$32,636.75
$0.00
$0.00
$32,636.75
I. Federal payments previously requested
$15,687.44
$0.00
$0.00
$15,687.44
u. Amount requested for reimbursement
$16,949
$0.00,
$0.001
$16,949
v. Percent of physical completion of project
33.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.0%
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED:
12. CERTIFICATION:
1 certify that to the best of my knowledge
a. RECIPIENT
and belief the billed costs or disburse-
PED OR PRINTED NAME AND TITLE:
TELEPHONE NO.:
ments are in accordance with the terms
JOSHUA Y. HORTON
of the project and that the reimbursement
TOWN SUPERVISOR
(631) 765-1889
represents the Federal share due which
has not been previously requested and.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
DATE; REPORT SUBMITTED:
that an inspection has been performed
and all work is in accordance with the
b. Representative
terms of the award.
certifying to line
11V.
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND TITLE:
TELEPHON NO.:
KELLI R. WALTERS
GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR
(315) 455-2000
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
271-1m
J
0
Elizabeth Field Airport
Apron and Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design)
Town of Southold
F.A.A. AIP PROJECT NO. 3-36-0029-09-02
N.Y.S.D.O.T. PROJECT NO. 0913.09
SUMMARY OF STATE ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS
PROGRAM NO. 1
0_3 /26/2003
211.008.001
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL STATE
INCURRED COST
NON -
PROJECT PHASE
ELIGIBLE COST
ELIGIBLE COST
STATE ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPATING
a. EQUIPMENT ...........................
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
b. LAND ......................................
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
c. CONSTRUCTION ....................
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
d. ENGINEERING ........................
$106,344.00
$106,344.00
$36,263.06
$0.00
e. OTHER ....................................
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
f. ADMINISTRATION ..... ........
$1,656.00
$1,656.00
$0.00
TOTAL STATE COSTS
$110,000.00
$110,000.00
$36,263.06
$0.00
WORK PERFORMED TO: 03/07/03
Elizabeth Field Airport
Apron and Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design)
Town of Southold
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING FEES
PROGRAM NO. 1
DATE
09/16/02
11/01/02
12/12/02
01/23/03
02/11/03
03/24/03
TOTALS
03/26/2003
211.008.001
ELIGIBLE
RETAINAGE NON-
FAA
NYSDOT
AMOUNT
WITHHELD PARTICIPATING
REIMB.
REIMB.
AMOUNT
REQ. NO.
REQ. NO.
$3,668.41
ONE
ONE
$2,527.97
ONE
ONE
$11,234.11
ONE
ONE
$2,156.89
TWO
TWO
$10,441.37
TWO
TWO
$6,234.31
TWO
TWO
$36,263.06
$0.00 $0.00
ENGINEERS
. DESIGN BUIL®
COMPANIES TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PREPARATION OF FORM C
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
FROM 11/30/02 THROUGH 01/10/03
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 01/23/03
INVOICE #: 301187
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
EST. COST: 34,592.00
FIXED FEE: 3,314.00
TOTAL : 37,906.00
ANALYSIS OF COST
THIS INVOICE
DIRECT SALARIES
766.20
OVERHEAD % 141.10
1,081.11
TOTAL REGULAR LABOR EXPENSE
--------------
1,847.31
PREMIUM LABOR COST
.00
TOTAL IgRECT PERSONNEL
--------------
1,847.31
G&A %
.00
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
28.25
TOTAL COSTS
--------------
1,875.56
FIXED FEE
281.33
TOTAL THIS INVOICE
--------------
2,156.89
AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE
--------------
2,156.89
CONTACT PERSON: SUE LOEWER,
ACCOUNT MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (315) 455-2000
EXT. NO. 422
NET 30 DAYS
1 1/2% INTEREST PER
MONTH
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUIL®
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
S A L A R Y & E X P E N S E D E T A I L
SALARIES BASED ON MULTIPLIER
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 01/23/03
INVOICE #: 301187
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
26.50
OTHER EXPENSES
COST/QTY
POSTAGE & SHIPPING
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 28.25
PREM AMOUNT
68.00
20.70
620.00
35.00
22.50
766.20
RATE AMOUNT
1.0000 28.25
-------------
28.25
** Total Project 211.008.001 794.45
HOURS
RATE
MANAGING ENGINEER
NAPOLITANO, RALPH E.
2.00
34.0000
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
BAYER, BRYAN A.
1.00
20.7000
SENIOR AIRPORT PLANNER
CALINAO, BERNARDITA
20.00
31.0000
24
GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR
WALTERS, KELLI R.
2.00
17.5000
TECHNICAL TYPIST
GRIFFIN, TARENNA K.
1.50
15.0000
26.50
OTHER EXPENSES
COST/QTY
POSTAGE & SHIPPING
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 28.25
PREM AMOUNT
68.00
20.70
620.00
35.00
22.50
766.20
RATE AMOUNT
1.0000 28.25
-------------
28.25
** Total Project 211.008.001 794.45
Ship To: CAROL RAEMSCH, PH.D
Service Type:
UPS NEXT DAY AIR
Shipment Service Charge:
$
18.25
HARTGEN ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSOC., INC.
Total Packages:
1
Saturday Delivery:
$
10.00
1713 8TH AVENUE
Hundredweight:
No
BROOKLYN NY 11215-6103
Billable Wt.:
2.0
Billing Option:
Prepaid
Ship From: GOODEVE
Package Ref No. 1:
211.008.001.600
GOODEVE
C&S Engineers, Inc.
SYR HANCOCK AIRPORT
SYRACUSE NY 13212-6906
Tracking No.:
lZl042994443687Z36
Package Service Charge:
$
18.25
Package Type:
Package /
Weight:
2.0 l
Shipper Amt:
$
28.25
Trx Ret No.:
211.008.001.600
UPS Total Charge:
$
28.25
F
ENGINEERS
CBS DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
COMPANIES OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PREPARATION OF FORM C
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
FROM 01/11/03 THROUGH 02/07/03
CSS Engineers, Inc. ;
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 02/11/03
INVOICE #: 302105
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
EST. COST: 34,592.00
FIXED FEE: 3,314.00
TOTAL : 37,906.00
ANALYSIS OF COST
THIS INVOICE
DIRECT SALARIES
3,022.25
OVERHEAD % 141.10
4,264.39
TOTAL REGULAR LABOR EXPENSE
--------------
7,286.64
PREMIUM LABOR COST
.00
TOTAL DIRECT PERSONNEL
--------------
7,286.64
G&A %
.00
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
2,406.61
TOTAL COSTS
--------------
9,693.25
FIXED FEE
748.12
TOTAL THIS INVOICE
--------------
10,441.37
AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE
--------------
10,441.37
CONTACT PERSON: SUE LOEWER,
ACCOUNT MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (315) 455-2000
EXT. NO. 422
NET 30 DAYS
1 1/2% INTEREST PER
MONTH
ENGINEERS
Cos DESIGN BUILD
COMPANIES TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
S A L A R Y & E X P E N S E D E T A I L
SALARIES BASED ON MULTIPLIER
C&S Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
wvwv.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 02/11/03
INVOICE #: 302105
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
PREM
AMOUNT
51.00
21.60
34.40
190.00
796.95
190.30
1,488.00
70.00
180.00
3,022.25
HOURS
RATE
MANAGER AIRPORT PLANNING
NAPOLITANO, RALPH E.
1.50
34.0000
ENGINEER
MANAHAN, KATE L. ASH
1.00
21.6000
SENIOR GEOLOGIST
BARBA, THOMAS A.
1.00
34.4000
DESIGNER
GORDON JR., JOHN H.
10.00
19.0000
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
BAYER, BRYAN A.
38.50
20.7000
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST
WIRICKX, THOMAS C
11.00
17.3000
SENIOR AIRPORT PLANNER
CALINAO, BERNARDITA
48.00
31.0000
GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR
WALTERS, KELLI R.
4.00
17.5000
DESIGNER
CELI, JON
8.00
22.5000
123.00
PREM
AMOUNT
51.00
21.60
34.40
190.00
796.95
190.30
1,488.00
70.00
180.00
3,022.25
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
SALARY & EXPENSE DETAIL
OTHER EXPENSES
COST/QTY
SUBCONTRACT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
HARTGEN ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSOC 2,251.61
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER DIRECT EXPENSE
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCE 155.00
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 02/11/03
INVOICE #: 302105
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
RATE
1.0000
1.0000
** Total Project 211.008.001
AMOUNT
2,251.61
155.00
------------
2,406.61
5,428.86
SERVICES BY OTHERS
TO: Accountin DATE:
FROM:
RE: Attached Invoice
BILLABLE TO CLIENT?
Yes ( 1Y) No ( } Jill
CHARGE NUMBER: Z I 1 0 0 6 v_ Q 1 I I
REMARKS:
DUE: Now ( j When C&S Paid
APPROVED BY: ax .'
roject Manager
ACCOUNTING:
Invoice Checked
Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc.
1744 Washington Ave. Ext.
Rensselaer, New York 12144
Phone: (518)283-0534
Fax: (518)283-6276
E-mail: hartgen@hartgen.com
Federal I D#: 14-1666341 I
S do:
Gerald .�
C & S Engineers, Inc.
Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
Syracuse, NY 13212
Customer ID: 322
Invoice
Invoice Number:
02:437
Invoice Date:
Jan 15, 2003
Page:
1
Customer PO Payment Terms Due Date jJob ID Y008
_Net 30 Days 2/14/03 Y008
Quantitv I RPM I n--;_4.;__ I 1 Init Priya I Fvtancinn
f
/9
Check No:/(
Subtotal 2,251.61
Total Invoice Amount 2,251.61
Payment Received 0.00
TOTAL 2,251.61
Accounts unpaid over 30 days are charged 1.5% monthly finance charge.
PROGRESS INVOICE
Phase IA Literature Review and Phase IB Archeological Field
Reconnaissance. Elizabeth Field Airport. Town of Southold,
Fishers Island, New York.
--Fieldwork
14.00
Michael Diaz 12/13/02
26.40
369.60
14.00
Carol Raemsch 12/13/02
110.01)
1,540.00
--Research
1.25
Kim Croshier 11/11-14/02
30.80
38.50
0.50
aura Hertle 11/12/02
26.40
13.20
2.00
Laura Hertle 11/8/02
26.40
52.80
1.50
<im Croshier 11/7/02
30.80
46.20
--Expenses
hone Oct -Dec 2002
0.61
FedEx to Carol Raemsch 11 /1'4/2002
12.40
FedEx to Carol Raemsch 11/8/2002
13.61
Fishers Ferry 12/13/2002
14.50
Fisher Ferry 12/13/2002
24.00
Tolls 12/13-14/2002
22.50
Mileage 12/13-14/2002
102.96
Mileage Hertle 11/12/2002
0.43
Map copies 11/14/2002
0.30
/9
Check No:/(
Subtotal 2,251.61
Total Invoice Amount 2,251.61
Payment Received 0.00
TOTAL 2,251.61
Accounts unpaid over 30 days are charged 1.5% monthly finance charge.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
P.O. Box 74551
Chicago, IL 60690
Phone: (203) 255-6606
Fax : (203) 255-1976
Ship To:
Bryan A. Bayer
C & S Engineers, Inc.
499 Colonel Eileen CollinsBlvd
Syracuse, NY 13212
1-5 � • tib �� � . (®, ����
Ship Date
Account#
Invoice #
01/14/2003
1012179
910529
Remit Payment To:
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
P.O. Box 74551
Chicago, IL 60690
Terms
Order Date
Order Time
Caller
Account Representative
Payable Upon Receipt
01/14/2003
12:26:01
Bryan A. Bayer
Erik Terranova
Report Type
Price
zip
Customer PO #
Cust Proj #
Project/Site Name or`Description
.,,
EDR Radius Map
Sanborn Map Search
155.00
0.00
06390
06390
211.008.001.600
211.008.001.600
211.008.001
211.008.001
Proposed Terminal Apron Project
Proposed Terminal Apron Project
SALES TAX ->
TOTAL DUE ->
0.00
155.00
ENGINEERS
C (83 S DESIGN BUILD
COMPANIES TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PREPARATION OF FORM C
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
FROM 02/08/03 THROUGH 03/07/03
ANALYSIS OF COST
DIRECT SALARIES
OVERHEAD % 141.10
TOTAL REGULAR LABOR EXPENSE
PREMIUM LABOR COST
TOTAL DIRECT PERSONNEL
G&A %
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
TOTAL COSTS
FIXED FEE
TOTAL THIS INVOICE
AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE
C&S Engineers, Inc. ,
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 03/24/03
INVOICE #: 303213
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
EST. COST:
FIXED FEE:
TOTAL :
THIS INVOICE
1,388.08
1,958.58
--------------
3,346.66
.00
--------------
3,346.66
.00
2,887.65
--------------
6,234.31
.00
--------------
6,234.31
--------------
6,234.31
CONTACT PERSON: SUE LOEWER, ACCOUNT MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (315) 455-2000 EXT. NO. 422
NET 30 DAYS
1 1/2% INTEREST PER MONTH
34,592.00
3,314.00
37,906.00
ENGINEERS
. DESIGN BUILD
COMPANIES TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT
FOOT OF STATE STREET
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
S A L A R Y & E X P E N S E D E T A I L
SALARIES BASED ON MULTIPLIER
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
WWW.cscos.com
INV. DATE: 03/24/03
INVOICE #: 303213
PROJECT #: 211.008.001
CLIENT REF:
HOURS
RATE
PREM AMOUNT
MANAGING ENGINEER
CLARK, BRUCE
6.00
36.2000
217.20
NAPOLITANO, RALPH E.
1.00
34.0000
34.00
BARBA, THOMAS A.
4.00
34.4000
137.60
AIRPORT PLANNER
GORDON JR., JOHN H.
1.50
19.7500
29.63
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
BAYER, BRYAN A.
26.00
20.7000
538.20
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST
WIRICKX, THOMAS C
1.00
17.3000
17.30
SENIOR AIRPORT PLANNER
CALINAO, BERNARDITA
8.00
31.0000
248.00
DESIGNER
CELI, JON
7.00
22.5000
157.50
TECHNICAL TYPIST
HAMILTON, CHERYL ANN
.50
17.3000
8.65
--------
55.00
----------
----------
1,388.08
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INV. DATE:
FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT INVOICE #:
FOOT OF STATE STREET PROJECT #:
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320
CLIENT REF:
SALARY & EXPENSE DETAIL
OTHER EXPENSES
f
CSS Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Boulevard
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
03/24/03
303213
211.008.001
COST/QTY RATE
SUBCONTRACT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
HARTGEN ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSOC 2,887.65 1.0000
** Total Project 211.008.001
AMOUNT
2,887.65
------------
2,887.65
4,275.73
Hartgen Archeological Associates
1744 Washington Ave. Ext
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Phone: (518) 283-0534
Fax: (518) 283-6276
E -Mail: hartgen@hartgen.com 1 t
Federal Tax ID#: 14166341
Sold To:
Bernadita Calinao
C & S Engineers, Inc.
499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd.
Syracuse, NY 13212
Customer ID 322
Invoice
Invoice Number:
02:468
Invoice Date:
Feb 4, 2003
Page:
1
F —
Item
Description
Custonner PO
Payment Terms
Net 30 Days
Due Date Job ID
3/6/03 Y008
Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity
Hours
Item
Description
Unit Price
Extension
Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity
Assessment and Phase IB Field Reconnaissance Survey.
Elizabeth Field Airport, Town of Southold, Fishers Island,
New York.
Report Preparation
2.00
Carol Raemsch 1/28-29/03
110.00
220.00
19.00
Carol Raemsch 1/21-24/03
110.00
2,090.00
5.00
Evangelia Tsesmelia 1/22-24/03
35.20
176.00
2.00
Sally Light 1/23/03
48.40
96.80
2.00
John Wilkinson 1/22-23/03
33.00
66.00
Expenses
Gold Star Photo Image 1/22/03
7.34
Lodging 12/13-15/2002
165.01
Report Reproduction
66.50
6�
Check No:
') Lim
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Invoice Amount
Payment Received
TOTAL
Accounts unpaid over 30 days are charged 1.5% monthly finance charge.
2,887.65
2,887.65
0.00
2,887.65
.1 1 -.I , N .. OMB Approval No. 0348-004;
APPLICATION FOR
2. DATE SUBMITTED
APPLICANT IDENTIFIER
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
01/29/2002
211
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION:
3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE
STATE APPLICANT IDENTIFIER
Application Preapplication
0913.07
Construction Construction
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY
FEDERAL IDENTIFIER
LXJ Non -Const. Non -Const.
3-36-0029-09-02
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name:
ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT:
Town of Southold
Fishers Island Ferry District
Address (give city, county, state, and zip code)
NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ON MATTERS
INVOLVING THIS APPLICATION (give area code):
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
R. Philip Knauff
Southold, NY 11971
(631) 788-7463
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):
7. TYPE OF APPLICANT (enter appropriate letter in box): D
01 3 3 0
A. State H. Independent School Dist
B. County I. State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning
C. Municipal J. Private University
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
D. Township K. Indian Tribe
0 New 0 Continuation O Revision
E. Interstate L. Individual
F. Intermunicipal M. Profit Organization
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es): 71 0
G. Special District N Other (Specify)
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award C. Increase Duration
9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
D. Decrease Duration Other (Specify):
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC
11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT:
ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 2 O o 1 O 6
TITLE: Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Apron and Taxiway Stub
(Environmental & Design)
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (cities, counties, slates, etc.)
Fishers Island
13. PROPOSED PROJECT:
14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date
Ending Date
a. Applicant
b. Project
2nd
2nd
15. ESTIMATED FUNDING:
16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a Federal
$
a. YES X� This Preapplication/Application Was Made Available To The
State Executive Order 12373 Process For Review On
Date: submitted 12/21/01
b. NO Program Is Not Covered By E.O. 12373
Or Program Has Not Been Selected By State For Review
b Applicant
$ .00
c State
$ .00
d Local
$ .00
e Other
$ .00
f Program Income
$
17 IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
Yes. If "Yes," attach an explanation. ox No
g TOTAL
$ .00
18, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a Typed Name of Authorized Representative b Title Deputy
i` Town Supervisor
19
c Telephone number
(631) 765-1889
d Signature of Authorized Re entati e
e Date Signed
3/19/02
rrevlous taltlons Not Usably / Standard Form 424 (REV 4-88)
V Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
Authorized for Local Reproduction
15E ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION _ OMB NO. 60-R_0184
PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION - CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A - GENERAL
1. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No .................. 20.106
2. Functional or Other Breakout ...........................
SECTION B - CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT
Cost Classification
Use only for revisions
Total
Amount
Required
Latest Approved
Amount
Adjustment
+ or H
1. Administration expense
$1,656
2. Preliminary expense
$0
3. Land, structures, right-of-way
$0
4. Architectural engineering basic fees Design
$68,438
5. Other architectural engineering fees Environmental
$37,906
6. Project inspection fees
$0
7. Land development
$0
8. Relocation Expenses
$0
9. Relocation payments to Individuals and Businesses
$0
10. Demolition and removal
$0
11. Construction & project improvement
$0
12.Equipment
$0
13. Miscellaneous IFE
$2,000
14. Total Lines 1 through 13
$110,000
15. Estimated Income (if applicable)
$0
16. Net Project Amount Line 14 minus 15 _
$110,000
17. Less: Ineligible Exclusions _
$0
18. Add: Contingencies
$0
19. Total Project Amt. Excluding Rehabilitation Grants)
$110,000
20. Federal Share requested of Line 19 90.00%
$99,000
21. Add Rehabilitation Grants Requested (100 Percent)
$0
22. Total Federal grant requested (Lines 20 & 21
-
-- _ _ - ---- -- _
— _
-__ _
$99,000
$5,500
$5500
$110,000
23. Grantee share 5.00%
24. Other shares 5.00%
25. Tot Lines 22 23 & 24�-- — —_— -- -- --------- ---
FAA Form 5100-100 (6-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100 - 10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 4
DEPPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
O M B N O. 80-R O 184
FAA Fom, 5100-100 (6-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100-10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 55
FAA AC 75-0232
SECTION C - EXCLUSIONS
Classification
Ineligible for
Participation
(1)
Excluded from
Contingency Provision
(2)
26
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Total
SECTION D - PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON-FEDERAL SHARE
27 Grantee Share
a. Securities
b. Mortgages
c. Appropriation (By Applicant)
d. Bonds
e. Tax Levies
f. Non Cash
g. Other (Explain)
h. TOTAL - Grantee share
5.00%
$5,500
28. Other Shares
a. State
5.00%
$5,500
b. Other
c. Total Other Shares
29. TOTAL
$11,000
SECTION E - REMARKS
PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach -See Instructions)
FAA Fom, 5100-100 (6-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100-10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 55
FAA AC 75-0232
PART IV: PROGRAM NARRATIVE
Fisher's Island — Elizabeth Field
Project Narrative Statement
Apron and Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design)
Description: This project will generally include the construction of a 45,000 SF tie -down Apron,
which will accommodate approximately 8 small aircraft. A 180 -foot long, 25 -foot
wide taxiway will connect the proposed apron to Runway 25. This contract will
include all the grading, paving, drainage, and marking necessary to complete the
apron and taxiway.
Justification: The existing apron at the airport is in very poor condition, and more importantly, is
also within the Runway Safety Area for runway 7-25. The relocation of the Apron
is necessary to obtain the required separation distance between the runway and apron
as per the FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular. This apron project should
increase the overall safety of aircraft operations, as well as increase the number of
planes able to be parked at the airport.
Consistency with ALP/FAA Standards
This project is recommended in the Airport Master Plan and appears on the existing Airport Layout
Plan.
Consultation with Users
Fisher's Island Ferry District confirms that Operators at Elizabeth Field have been consulted and
are aware of the proposed development project.
Displaced Persons Statement
The airport project proposed in this aid application does not involve the displacement or relocation
of persons residing on land needed for such development.
Specific Opposition Statement
Fisher's Island Ferry District is not aware of any significant community opposition to the proposed
project.
lw
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown. northfork. net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 190 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON MARCH 12,2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton to execute and forward Brant applications to the Federal
Aviation Administration for federal funding to make improvements at the Elizabeth Airport,
Fishers Island, New York, as requested by the Fishers Island Ferry District.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
January 29, 2002
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
Manager
Fishers Island Ferry District
P.O. Box H
Fishers Island, New York 06390
Re: Fisher's Island — Elizabeth Field
Apron and Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design)
Final Application FY2002
File: 211
Enclosed please find the following:
CSS Engineers, Inc.
Syracuse Hancock International Airport
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
Five copies of the Final Application for Federal Assistance for the proposed Apron and
Taxiway Stub (Environmental & Design) projects, for your review and signature:
Remarks:
Please s ,#4100 A
= he applina on as indicated, forward one directly to Mr. Philip
Brito, return three copies to me for distribution to the NYSDOT, and keep one copy of the application
for your files. I have enclosed envelopes for your convenience.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
Kelli R. Walters
Grants Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dan Vornea (w/encl.)
Mr. Joshua Y. Horton (w/encl.)
D ,
F8- 120
SUPERVISORSVOF SOUTH0 D
ENGINEERS
DESIGN BUILD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
February 5, 2002
Joshua Y. Horton
Town of Southold
Town Hall PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
C&S Engineers, Inc.
Syracuse Hancock International Airport
Syracuse, NY 13212
phone 315-455-2000
fax 315-455-9667
www.cscos.com
r, SUPERVISORS GFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
Apron and Taxiway Stub
Engineering Services Consultant Agreement for Design
File: 211.008
Dear Mr. Horton:
Enclosed for your review and approval is one (1) copy of the draft Engineering Services
Consultant Agreement for this project. This Agreement provides for the complete design of the
project generally including project management, preliminary and final design, subsurface soil
investigation and laboratory testing, topographic surveys, and direct expenses. In addition,
this Agreement provides for the complete preparation of Environmental Form "C" as required
by NEPA.
In accordance with FAA AC 150/5100-14, the Town is responsible for completing the
Independent Fee Estimate (IFE) for this agreement. The IFE is to be submitted to the FAA for
their review and approval. Please feel free to contact me so I can explain the IFE process.
By copy of this letter, we are also submitting draft copies of this Agreement to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for their review and approval.
If you have any questions in reference to the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS,IN
6� /W,
Bruce W. Clark; PE
Managing Engineer
cc: Mr. Philip Brito (w/encl.)
Mr. Philip Knauff (w/encl.)
I A(;.6110 PJ2UJIi(I I!, , Su,I LAI If K4DL's A(;RI 1O('
From:
Diana Von Buer�
Farrell & Fritz, P. C. f to C_t is
Kathleen Neumann
DOT
M. Berkvist
Land Preservation Committee ./
Planning Board .�
Town Clerk
Town Clerk,/'
DOT/FAA f'
Lucille Siracusano
NOTED: /��P</eg�(Please initial)
jyh
MAIL LOG 2002
July 19,2002
Subject:
Newsletter from Upstate Organization devoted to Family Farms
LI Edition of Law Journal Article outlining the importance of undertaking
SEQRA reviews
LIPA Transmission Lines — requesting burying of the lines. Also a copy of
A letter sent to Pataki (Hot Mail Folder)
Plans and drawings for Fish Pond @ Skipper Horton Park (Hot Mail
Folder)
Letter to Times Review re Michael Chusiano property on Diamond Lane
In Peconic.
Agenda July 23rd
Agenda, Site Plans Wed 7/22
Police Advisory Committee Thursday, July 25th
Laserfice Update
Elizabeth Field Airport — Grant Offer (Gavto Jim McMahon to review)
Letter to you and TB re Property on Di nd Lane in Peconic. Submitted
many copies of letters that are on file w' Town Clerk (Hot Mail Folder)
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 401 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON JUNE 18,2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Horton to execute a revised grant agreement between the Town of Southold and
the US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of
airport improvement at Elizabeth Field, Fishers island.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
U. S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
August 7, 2002
Mr. Bruce W. Clark
Project Engineer
C&S Engineers, Inc.
Syracuse -Hancock International Airport
Syracuse, New York 13212
Dear Mr. Clark:
Elizabeth Field Airport (OB8)
Fishers Island, New York
AIP 3-36-0029-09-02
Prepare Environmental Assessment;
Design for Apron & Access Taxiway
Consultant Agreement
New York Airports District Office
600 Old Country Rd, Suite 446
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: 516-227-3800
Fax: 516-227-3813
This office has completed its review, in addition to our
preliminary review of February 19, 2002, of the executed
Consultant Agreement, with Scopes of Work (Schedules A-1 &
A-2) and Fee Schedules (Schedules B-1 & B-2), for
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Engineering
Design for Apron and Access Taxiway at Elizabeth Field
Airport, Fishers Island, New York.
Pursuant to this review we find the costs submitted to be
"necessary and reasonable" and are therefore approving this
Consultant Agreement, with the Scopes Of Work (Schedule A-1
& A-2) and Fee Schedules (Schedule B-1 & B-2), in the "Lump
Sum" amounts submitted as follows:
1. Prepare Environmental Assessment (Form C) for Apron &
Access Taxiway: Approved in the "Lump Sum" amount
submitted of $37,906.00 ($34,116.00 Federal share).
2. Engineering Design for Apron & Access Taxiway
Construction: Approved in the "Lump Sum" amount
submitted of $68,438.00 ($61,594.00 Federal share).
This correspondence will also serve to acknowledge receipt,
and our approval of, the Independent Fee Estimate (IFE) for
this project prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. and
} L)
2
submitted by Mr. Thomas Doherty's correspondence dated April
29, 2002.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me at (516) 227-3810.
Sincerely,
ofs b1 �.wA
Lawrence W. A'Hearn
NY Airports District Office
cc: NYSDOT, D. Fox
Mr. Joshua Linehorton, Supervisor, Town of Southold
NYADO, L. A'Hearn 08/07/02
File: Fishers Island 09-02 Engineering (OB809ENG.DOC)
�` J
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR. OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown. northfork. net
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 191 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON MARCH 12,2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton to execute an agreement with C&S Engineers, Inc., Syracuse
Hancock International Airport, Syracuse, NY 13212 to provide engineering services in
accordance with a Lump Sum Consultant Agreement for the apron and taxiway stub at Elizabeth
Airport (FAA AIP No. 3-36-0029-09-02 and NYSDOT No. 0913.09), Fishers Island, New York
as requested by the Fishers Island Ferry District.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 25, 2002
Philip Brito
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
600 Old Country Road, Suite 446
Garden City, New York 11530
Dear Mr. Brito:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
sou tholdtow n. northfork. net
Enclosed please find one (1) copy of a signed Master Agreement for the Town of
Southold, together with the June 18, 2002 certified copy of Town Board resolution
number 401 authorizing the same. I have retained one for my records.
If you have any questions in reference to the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 631765-1800,
Very truly yours,
Q TEliza eth A. Neville////
Southold Town Clerk
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 401 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON JUNE 18,2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Horton to execute a revised Brant aereement between the Town of Southold and
the US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of
airport improvement at Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
O�OS,3FFO(/(coG
y�
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
_
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
TOWN CLERK
o -
P.O. Box 1179
REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS
N
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
MARRIAGE OFFICER
1i ��
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
�a�
Telephone (631) 765-1800
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
southoldtown. northfork. net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 401 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON JUNE 18,2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Horton to execute a revised Brant aereement between the Town of Southold and
the US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of
airport improvement at Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
TO: Justice Louisa P. Evans
FROM: Town Clerk Betty Neville
RE: FAA Master Agreement
DATE: 10/26/01
Louisa,
I received a photocopy of this from the Supervisor's Office. It has no signature
on it. Does the original you received have a signature on it?
S
EP
A" 6)
f
�
4
U. S. Department New York Airports District Office
of Transportation 600 Old Country Rd, Suite 446
Garden City, New York 11530
Federal Aviation Telephone: 516-227-3800
Administration Fax: 516-227-3813
Dear Airport Sponsor:
Enclosed are two (2) copies of the revised Master Agreement.
Please sign each copy of the Master Agreement acknowledging
acceptance, and return one copy to this office.
The Master Agreement will be incorporated into every Grant
Agreement by reference.
Any future revisions to the Master Agreement will likewise
require your signed acceptance. Only grant agreements
executed subsequent to the revision will incorporate the
revision. We therefore, recommend that you safely retain the
Master Agreement and any revisions to it.
New Grant Offers will not be forwarded until we have a
signed Master Agreement in this office.
As stated above, changes are also being made with the grant
application. From now on only one copy of the grant
application is to be submitted. As with the Master
Agreement, the grant application will be incorporated into
the grant agreement by reference.
The grant application shall include only the following
documents:
■ a standard Form 424,
■ a project description,
■ a cost breakdown by project description, i.e.
taxiway overlay, apron expansion, etc.
■ a scope of work
■ a cost breakdown using Part III Budget Pages(s),
4) Celebrating 50 Years of Airport Development
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
ACCEPTANCE
The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, representations,
warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in this Master Agreement as part of all Grant
Agreements between the Sponsor and the Federal Aviation Administration as provided by Title 49
U.S.C. which are executed subsequent to the date of acceptance of this Master Agreement.
Date:
Name/Title:
Sponsor: TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD, NEW YORK
Airport: ELIZABETH FIELD AIRPORT, FISHERS ISLAND,NEW YORK
21
■ a sketch of the work to be contained in the grant if
not already provided in the ACIP package
■ Evidence of the intergovernmental review
coordination, if not included with the ACIP package.
You will also notice some changes in the Grant Offer as we
issue them.
We trust that these changes will facility all of our efforts
in the AIP grant process.
Sincerely,
1 � '
Philip Brito
Manager, New ork Airports District Office
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federa/Aviation
Administration
SPONSOR: TOWN OF SOLITHHOLD, NEW YORK
AIRPORT: ELIZABETH FIELD AIRPORT, FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
MASTER AGREEMENT ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
This document contains the terms and conditions of accepting Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49,
United States Code. These terms and conditions become applicable when the sponsor accepts a Grant
Offer from the FAA that references this document. The terms and conditions may be unilaterally
amended by the FAA, by notification in writing, and such amendment will only apply to grants accepted
after notification.
I. DEFINITIONS
A. Sponsor - An agency that is legally, financially, and otherwise able to assume and carry out the
certifications, representations, warranties, assurances, covenants and other obligations required
in this document and in the accepted Grant Agreement.
B. Project - Work as identified in the Grant Agreement.
C. Primary Airport - a commercial service airport the Secretary of Transportation determines to have
more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year.
II. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by the FAA to be
ineligible for consideration under the Title 49 U.S.C..
B. Payment of the United States' share of the allowable project costs will be made pursuant to and in
accordance with the provisions of such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall
prescribe. Final determination of the United States' share will be based upon the final audit of the
total amount of allowable project costs, and settlement will be made for any upward or downward
adjustments to the Federal share of costs.
C. The Sponsor shall carry out and complete the Project without undue delays and in accordance
with the terms hereof, and such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe.
D. The FAA reserves the right to amend or withdraw a grant offer at any time prior to its acceptance
by the Sponsor.
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
E. A grant offer will expire, and the United States shall not be obligated to pay any part of the costs
of the project unless the grant offer has been accepted by the Sponsor on or before 60 days after
the grant offer but no later than September 30 of the federal fiscal year the grant offer was made,
or such subsequent date as may be prescribed in writing by the FAA.
F. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover Federal funds spent
fraudulently, wastefully, or in violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any manner in
any project upon which Federal funds have been expended. For the purposes of this grant
agreement, the term "Federal funds" means funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor that
were originally paid pursuant to this or any other Federal grant agreement. It shall obtain the
approval of the Secretary as to any determination of the amount of the Federal share of such
funds. It shall return the recovered Federal share, including funds recovered by settlement, order
or judgment, to the Secretary. It shall furnish to the Secretary, upon request, all documents and
records pertaining to the determination of the amount of the Federal share or to any settlement,
litigation, negotiation, or other efforts taken to recover such funds. All settlements or other final
positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise, involving the recovery of such Federal share shall
be approved in advance by the Secretary.
G. The United States shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons
which may arise from, or be incident to, compliance with a grant agreement.
H. If, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that a grant amount exceeds the expected
needs of the Sponsor by $5,000 or five percent (5%), whichever is greater, a grant amount can be
unilaterally reduced by letter from FAA advising of the budget change. Conversely, with the
exception of planning projects, if there is an overrun in the eligible project costs, FAA may
increase a grant for an airport development project to cover the amount of the overrun not to
exceed 15% percent of the original grant amount. For a grant for non -primary airports to acquire
an interest in land, the FAA may increase the grant amount by not more than the greater of the
following, based on current creditable appraisals or a court award in a condemnation proceeding ,
(1) 15% percent of the original grant amount or (2) 25% percent of the total increase in allowable
project costs attributable to acquiring an interest in land. FAA will advise the Sponsor by letter of
the increase. Planning projects will not be increased above the planning portion of the maximum
obligation of the United States shown in the grant agreement. Upon issuance of either of the
aforementioned letters, the maximum obligation of the United States is adjusted to the amount
specified. In addition, the Sponsor's officially designated representative, is authorized to request
FAA concurrence in revising the project description and grant amount within statutory limitations.
A letter from the FAA concurring in the said requested revision to the project work description and
grant amount shall constitute an amendment to a Grant Agreement.
If requested by the Sponsor and authorized by the FAA, the letter of credit method of payment
may be used. It is understood and agreed that the sponsor agrees to request cash withdrawals
on the letter of credit only when actually needed for its disbursements and to timely reporting of
such disbursements as required. It is understood that failure to adhere to this provision may
cause the letter of credit to be revoked.
J. Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, the Sponsor will not acquire or permit any contractor or
subcontractor to acquire any steel or manufactured products which do not comply with the FAA's
Buy American clauses to be used for any project for airport development or noise compatibility for
which funds are provided under this grant. The sponsor will include in every contract a provision
implementing this condition.
K. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Sponsor shall complete
this project to provide a safe and usable unit.
2
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
L.. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the typewritten description of
airport development appearing in Item 11 of the Project Application is hereby deleted and the
typewritten description of airport development appearing on Page 1 of the Grant Offer is
substituted in its place and stead..
M. Private sponsors shall provide, when requested by the FAA, for an audit of the project to be made
at the completion of the grant objective in accordance with accepted standard audit practices.
Two copies of that audit shall be forwarded to the FAA. Airports District Office.
N. The sponsor agrees to perform the following:
1. Furnish a construction management program to FAA prior to the start of construction
which shall detail the measures and procedures to be used to comply with the quality control
provisions of the construction contract, including, but not limited to, all quality control
provisions and tests required by the Federal specifications. The program shall include as a
minimum:
a. The name of the person representing the sponsor who has overall
responsibility for contract administration for the project and the authority to take
necessary actions to comply with the contract.
b. Names of testing laboratories and consulting engineer firms with
quality control responsibilities on the project together with a description of the services
to be provided.
C. Procedures for determining that testing laboratories meet the
requirements of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standards on
laboratory evaluation, referenced in the contract specifications (D 3666, C 1077).
d. Qualifications of engineering supervision and construction inspection
personnel.
e. A listing of all tests required by the contract specifications, including
the type and frequency of test to be taken, the method of sampling, the applicable
test standard, and the acceptance criteria or tolerances permitted for each type of
tests.
f. Procedures for ensuring that the tests are taken in accordance with
the program, that they are documented daily, and that the proper corrective actions,
where necessary are undertaken.
III. ASSURANCES (Airport Sponsors)
A.
B.
General.
1. These assurances shall be complied with in the performance of grant agreements for airport
development, airport planning, and noise compatibility program grants for airport sponsors.
2. These assurances are required to be submitted as part of the project application by
sponsors requesting funds under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended.
As used herein, the term "public agency sponsor" means a public agency with control of a
public -use airport; the term "private sponsor" means a private owner of a public -use airport;
and the term "sponsor" includes both public agency sponsors and private sponsors.
3. Upon acceptance of the grant offer by the sponsor, these assurances are
incorporated in and become part of the grant agreement.
Duration and Applicability.
3
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Public
Agency Sponsor. The terms, conditions and assurances of the grant agreement shall
remain in full force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or
equipment acquired for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or
throughout the useful life of the project items installed within a facility under a noise
compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date
of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project. However, there shall be no
limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Exclusive Rights and Airport Revenue so
long as the airport is used as an airport. There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms,
conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with federal funds.
Furthermore, the duration of the Civil Rights Assurance shall be specified in the assurances.
2. Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Projects Undertaken by a Private
Sponsor. The preceding paragraph 1 also applies to a private sponsor except that the
useful life of project items installed within a facility or the useful life of the facilities developed
or equipment acquired under an airport development or noise compatibility program project
shall be no less than ten (10) years from the date of acceptance of Federal aid for the
project.
3. Airport Planning Undertaken by a Sponsor. Unless otherwise specified in the
grant agreement, only Assurances 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 18, 30, 32, 33, and 34 in section C apply
to planning projects. The terms, conditions, and assurances of the grant agreement shall
remain in full force and effect during the life of the project.
C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certifies, with respect to this grant that:
1. General Federal Requirements. It will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations,
executive orders, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application,
acceptance and use of Federal funds for this project including but not limited to the following:
Federal Legislation
a. Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended.
b. Davis -Bacon Act - 40 U.S.C. 276(a), et seo.1
C. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act - 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
d. Hatch Act - 5 U.S.C. 1501, ee2
e. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 Title 42 U.S.C. 4601, et seci.1 2
f. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - Section 106 - 16 U.S.C. 470(f).1
g. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 - 16 U.S.C. 469 through
469c.1
h. Native Americans Grave Repatriation Act - 25 U.S.C. Section 3001, et sea.
i. Clean Air Act, P.L. 90-148, as amended.
j. Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 93-205, as amended.
k. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 - Section 102(a) - 42 U.S.C. 4012a.1
I. Title 49 ,U.S.C., Section 303, (formerly known as Section 4(f))
M. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - 29 U.S.C. 794.
n. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VI - 42 U.S.C. 2000d through d-4.
o. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 - 42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.
P. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341, as amended.
q Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 -42 U.S.C. 4151, et sea.1
r. Power plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 - Section 403- 2 U.S.C.
8373.1
S. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act - 40 U.S.C. 327, et sea•1
t. Copeland Antikickback Act - 18 U.S.C. 874.1
4
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
U. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seg.
V. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, as amended.
W. Single Audit Act of 1984 - 31 U.S.C. 7501, et seg.2
X. Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 - 41 U.S.C. 702 through 706.
Executive Orders
Executive Order 11246 - Equal Employment Opportunityl
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11998 - Flood Plain Management
Executive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
Executive Order 12699 - Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted New
Building Construction)
Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice
Federal Regulations
a. 14 CFR Part 13 - Investigative and Enforcement Procedures.
b. 14 CFR Part 16 - Rules of Practice for Federally
Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings.
C. 14 CFR Part 150 - Airport noise compatibility
planning.
d. 29 CFR Part 1 - Procedures for predetermination of wage rates.)
e. 29 CFR Part 3 - Contractors and subcontractors on public building or public
work financed in whole or part by loans or grants from the United States.1
f. 29 CFR Part 5 - Labor standards provisions applicable to contracts covering
federally financed and assisted construction (also labor standards provisions
applicable to non -construction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act).1
g. 41 CFR Part 60 - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal
Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor (Federal and federally
assisted contracting requirements).)
h. 49 CFR Part 18 - Uniform administrative requirements for grants and
cooperative agreements to state and local governments.3
i. 49 CFR Part 20 - New restrictions on lobbying.
j. 49 CFR Part 21 - Nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the
Department of Transportation - effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
k. 49 CFR Part 23 - Participation by Disadvantage
Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions.
I. 49 CFR Part 24 - Uniform relocation assistance and
real property acquisition for Federal and federally assisted programs. 12
M. 49 CFR Part 26 - Participation by Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Programs.
n. 49 CFR Part 27 - Nondiscrimination on the basis of
handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefitting from Federal
financial assistance. 1
o. 49 CFR Part 29 - Government wide debarment and
suspension (non -procurement) and government wide requirements for drug-
free workplace (grants).
P. 49 CFR Part 30 - Denial of public works contracts to
suppliers of goods and services of countries that deny procurement market
access to U.S. contractors.
q. 49 CFR Part 41 - Seismic safety of Federal and
federally assisted or regulated new building construction. 1
y1
ASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Office of Management and Budget Circulars
a. A-87 - Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State and
Local Governments.
b A-133 - Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations
1 These laws do not apply to airport planning sponsors.
2 These laws do not apply to private sponsors.
3 49 CFR Part 18 and OMB Circular A-87 contain requirements for State and Local
Governments receiving Federal assistance. Any requirement levied upon State
and Local Governments by this regulation and circular shall also be applicable to
private sponsors receiving Federal assistance under Title 49, United States Code.
Specific assurances required to be included in grant agreements by any of the above laws,
regulations or circulars are incorporated by reference in the grant agreement.
2. Responsibility and Authority of the Sponsor.
a. Public Agency Sponsor: It has legal authority to
apply for the grant, and to finance and carry out the proposed project; that a
resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an
official act of the applicant's governing body authorizing the filing of the
application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein,
and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official
representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and
to provide such additional information as may be required.
b. Private Sponsor: It has legal authority to apply for
the grant and to finance and carry out the proposed project and comply with
all terms, conditions, and assurances of this grant agreement. It shall
designate an official representative and shall in writing direct and authorize
that person to file this application, including all understandings and
assurances contained therein; to act in connection with this application; and
to provide such additional information as may be required.
3. Sponsor Fund Availability. It has sufficient funds available for that portion of the project costs
which are not to be paid by the United States. It has sufficient funds available to assure
operation and maintenance of items funded under the grant agreement which it will own or
control.
4. Good Title.
a. It, a public agency or the Federal government, holds
good title, satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or
site thereof, or will give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good
title will be acquired.
b. For noise compatibility program projects to be
carried out on the property of the sponsor, it holds good title satisfactory to
the Secretary to that portion of the property upon which Federal funds will be
expended or will give assurance to the Secretary that good title will be
obtained.
5. Preserving Rights and Powers.
0
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
a. It will not take or permit any action which would
operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers necessary to perform
any or all of the terms, conditions, and assurances in the grant agreement
without the written approval of the Secretary, and will act promptly to
acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of
others which would interfere with such performance by the sponsor. This
shall be done in a manner acceptable to the Secretary.
b. It will not sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise
transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in the property
shown on Exhibit A to this application or, for a noise compatibility program
project, that portion of the property upon which Federal funds have been
expended, for the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances in the
grant agreement without approval by the Secretary. If the transferee is
found by the Secretary to be eligible under Title 49, United States Code, to
assume the obligations of the grant agreement and to have the power,
authority, and financial resources to carry out all such obligations, the
sponsor shall insert in the contract or document transferring or disposing of
the sponsor's interest, and make binding upon the transferee all of the
terms, conditions, and assurances contained in this grant agreement.
C. For all noise compatibility program projects which
are to be carried out by another unit of local government or are on property
owned by a unit of local government other than the sponsor, it will enter into
an agreement with that government. Except as otherwise specified by the
Secretary, that agreement shall obligate that government to the same terms,
conditions, and assurances that would be applicable to it if it applied directly
to the FAA for a grant to undertake the noise compatibility program project.
That agreement and changes thereto must be satisfactory to the Secretary.
It will take steps to enforce this agreement against the local government if
there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
d. For noise compatibility program projects to be
carried out on privately owned property, it will enter into an agreement with
the owner of that property which includes provisions specified by the
Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this agreement against the property
owner whenever there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the
agreement.
e. If the sponsor is a private sponsor, it will take steps
satisfactory to the Secretary to ensure that the airport will continue to
function as a public -use airport in accordance with these assurances for the
duration of these assurances.
If an arrangement is made for management and
operation of the airport by any agency or person other than the sponsor or
an employee of the sponsor, the sponsor will reserve sufficient rights and
authority to insure that the airport will be operated and maintained in
accordance Title 49, United States Code, the regulations and the terms,
conditions and assurances in the grant agreement and shall insure that such
arrangement also requires compliance therewith.
7
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Consistency with Local Plans. The project is reasonably consistent with plans (existing at
the time of submission of this application) of public agencies that are authorized by the State
in which the project is located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport
7. Consideration of Local Interest. It has given fair consideration to the interest of
communities in or near where the project may be located.
8. Consultation with Users. In making a decision to undertake any airport
development project under Title 49, United States Code, it has undertaken reasonable
consultations with affected parties using the airport at which project is proposed.
9. Public Hearings. In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway,
or a major runway extension, it has afforded the opportunity for public hearings for the
purpose of considering the economic, social, and environmental effects of the airport or
runway location and its consistency with goals and objectives of such planning as has been
carried out by the community and it shall, when requested by the Secretary, submit a copy of
the transcript of such hearings to the Secretary. Further, for such projects, it has on its
management board either voting representation from the communities where the project is
located or has advised the communities that they have the right to petition the Secretary
concerning a proposed project.
10. Air and Water Quality Standards. In projects involving airport location, a major
runway extension, or runway location it will provide for the Governor of the state in which the
project is located to certify in writing to the Secretary that the project will be located,
designed, constructed, and operated so as to comply with applicable air and water quality
standards. In any case where such standards have not been approved and where applicable
air and water quality standards have been promulgated by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, certification shall be obtained from such Administrator.
Notice of certification or refusal to certify shall be provided within sixty days after the project
application has been received by the Secretary.
11. Pavement Preventive Maintenance. With respect to a project approved after
January 1, 1995, for the replacement or reconstruction of pavement at the airport, it assures
or certifies that it has implemented an effective airport pavement maintenance -management
program and it assures that it will use such program for the useful life of any pavement
constructed, reconstructed or repaired with Federal financial assistance at the airport. It will
provide such reports on pavement condition and pavement management programs as the
Secretary determines may be useful.
12. Terminal Development Prerequisites. For projects which include terminal
development at a public use airport, as defined in Title 49, it has, on the date of submittal of
the project grant application, all the safety equipment required for certification of such airport
under section 44706 of Title 49, United States Code, and all the security equipment required
by rule or regulation, and has provided for access to the passenger enplaning and deplaning
area of such airport to passengers enplaning and deplaning from aircraft other than air
carrier aircraft.
13. Accounting System, Audit, and Record Keeping Requirements.
a. It shall keep all project accounts and records which
fully disclose the amount and disposition by the recipient of the proceeds of
the grant, the total cost of the project in connection with which the grant is
given or used, and the amount or nature of that portion of the cost of the
project supplied by other sources, and such other financial records pertinent
to the project. The accounts and records shall be kept in accordance with
an accounting system that will facilitate an effective audit in accordance with
the Single Audit Act of 1984.
b. It shall make available to the Secretary and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized
representatives, for the purpose of audit and examination, any books,
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
documents, papers, and records of the recipient that are pertinent to the
grant. The Secretary may require that an appropriate audit be conducted by
a recipient. In any case in which an independent audit is made of the
accounts of a sponsor relating to the disposition of the proceeds of a grant
or relating to the project in connection with which the grant was given or
used, it shall file a certified copy of such audit with the Comptroller General
of the United States not later than six (6) months following the close of the
fiscal year for which the audit was made.
8. Minimum Wage Rates. It shall include, in all contracts in excess of $2,000 for work
on any projects funded under the grant agreement which involve labor, provisions
establishing minimum rates of wages, to be predetermined by the Secretary of Labor, in
accordance with the Davis -Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a -276a-5), which
contractors shall pay to skilled and unskilled labor, and such minimum rates shall be stated
in the invitation for bids and shall be included in proposals or bids for the work.
9. Veteran's Preference. It shall include in all contracts for work on any project funded
under the grant agreement which involve labor, such provisions as are necessary to insure
that, in the employment of labor (except in executive, administrative, and supervisory
positions), preference shall be given to Veterans of the Vietnam era and disabled veterans
as defined in Section 47112 of Title 49, United States Code. However, this preference shall
apply only where the individuals are available and qualified to perform the work to which the
employment relates.
10. Conformity to Plans and Specifications. It will execute the project subject to
plans, specifications, and schedules approved by the Secretary. Such plans, specifications,
and schedules shall be submitted to the Secretary prior to commencement of site
preparation, construction, or other performance under this grant agreement, and, upon
approval of the Secretary, shall be incorporated into this grant agreement. Any modification
to the approved plans, specifications, and schedules shall also be subject to approval of the
Secretary, and incorporated into the grant agreement.
11. Construction Inspection and Approval. It will provide and maintain competent
technical supervision at the construction site throughout the project to assure that the work
conforms to the plans, specifications, and schedules approved by the Secretary for the
project. It shall subject the construction work on any project contained in an approved
project application to inspection and approval by the Secretary and such work shall be in
accordance with regulations and procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Such regulations
and procedures shall require such cost and progress reporting by the sponsor or sponsors of
such project as the Secretary shall deem necessary.
12. Planning Projects. In carrying out planning projects:
a. It will execute the project in accordance with the approved program narrative
contained in the project application or with the modifications similarly approved.
b. It will furnish the Secretary with such periodic reports as required pertaining to the
planning project and planning work activities.
C. It will include in all published material prepared in connection with the planning
project a notice that the material was prepared under a grant provided by the United
States.
d. It will make such material available for examination by the public, and agrees that no
material prepared with funds under this project shall be subject to copyright in the
United States or any other country.
9
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
e. It will give the Secretary unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and
otherwise use any of the material prepared in connection with this grant.
f. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the sponsor's employment of
specific consultants and their subcontractors to do all or any part of this project as
well as the right to disapprove the proposed scope and cost of professional services.
g. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the use of the sponsor's employees
to do all or any part of the project.
h. It understands and agrees that the Secretary's approval of this project grant or the
Secretary's approval of any planning material developed as part of this grant does
not constitute or imply any assurance or commitment on the part of the Secretary to
approve any pending or future application for a Federal airport grant.
19. Operation and Maintenance.
a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical
users of the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United
States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and
in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or
prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance
and operation. It will not cause or permit any activity or action thereon which
would interfere with its use for airport purposes. It will suitably operate and
maintain the airport and all facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due
regard to climatic and flood conditions. Any proposal to temporarily close
the airport for non -aeronautical purposes must first be approved by the
Secretary.
In furtherance of this assurance, the sponsor will have in effect
arrangements for -
(1) Operating the airport's aeronautical facilities whenever required;
(2) Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from airport
conditions, including temporary conditions; and
(3) Promptly notifying airmen of any condition affecting aeronautical
use of the airport.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require that the airport be
operated for aeronautical use during temporary periods when snow, flood or
other climatic conditions interfere with such operation and maintenance.
Further, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the maintenance,
repair, restoration, or replacement of any structure or facility which is
substantially damaged or destroyed due to an act of God or other condition
or circumstance beyond the control of the sponsor.
It will suitably operate and maintain noise compatibility program items that it
owns or controls upon which Federal funds have been expended.
20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action to assure that such
terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport
(including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by
removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport
hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.
21. Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable,
including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport
operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise
compatibility program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land use,
10
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise
compatibility program measures upon which Federal funds have been expended.
22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable
terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of ae
aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering s
services to the public at the airport.
In any agreement, contract lease, or other arrangement under which a right
or privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm or corporation to
conduct or to engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to
the public at the airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions
requiring the contractor to -
(1) furnish said services on a reasonable,
and not unjustly discriminatory,
basis to all users thereof, and
(2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly disriminatory, prices for each unit or
service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable
and nondisriminatory discounts, rebates or other similar types of price
reductions to volume purchasers.
Each fixed -based operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates,
fees, rentals, and other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed -
based operators making the same or similar uses of such airport and
utilizing the same or similar facilities.
d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to
use any fixed -based operator that is authorized or permitted by the airport to
serve any air carrier at such airport.
e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, nontenant, or
subtenant of another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such
nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, regulations,
conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities
directly and substantially related to providing air transportation as are
applicable to all such air carriers which make similar use of such airport and
utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants
or nontenants and signatory carriers and nonsignatory carriers.
Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably
withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations
substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such
classification or status.
It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent
any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from
performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees
[including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may
choose to perform.
g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges
referred to in this assurance, the services involved will be provided on the
same conditions as would apply to the furnishing of such services by
commercial aeronautical service providers authorized by the sponsor under
these provisions.
11
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory,
conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the
safe and efficient operation of the airport.
The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type,
kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for
the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation
needs of the public.
23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by
any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.
For purposes of this paragraph, the providing of the services at an airport by a single
fixed -based operator shall not be construed as an exclusive right if both of the
following apply:
a. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one
fixed -based operator to provide such services, and
b. If allowing more than one fixed -based operator to provide such services would
require the reduction of space leased pursuant to an existing agreement
between such single fixed -based operator and such airport.
It further agrees that it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or
corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities, including,
but not limited to charter flights, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial
photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft
sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products whether or not conducted in
conjunction with other aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft
parts, and any other activities which because of their direct relationship to the operation of
aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity, and that it will terminate any exclusive
right to conduct an aeronautical activity now existing at such an airport before the grant of
any assistance under Title 49, United States Code.
22. Fee and Rental Structure. It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities
and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under
the circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors as the
volume of traffic and economy of collection. No part of the Federal share of an airport
development, airport planning or noise compatibility project for which a grant is made under
Title 49, United States Code, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Federal
Airport Act or the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 shall be included in the rate
basis in establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of that airport.
23. Airport Revenues.
a. All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel
established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or
operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities
which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which
are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of
passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport.
Provided, however, that if covenants or assurances in debt obligations issued
before September 3, 1982, by the owner or operator of the airport, or provisions
enacted before September 3, 1982, in governing statutes controlling the owner
or operator's financing, provide for the use of the revenues from any of the
airport owner or operator's facilities, including the airport, to support not only the
airport but also the airport owner or operator's general debt obligations or other
facilities, then this limitation on the use of all revenues generated by the airport
(and, in the case of a public airport, local taxes on aviation fuel) shall not apply.
12
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
b. As part of the annual audit required under the Single Audit Act of 1984, the
sponsor will direct that the audit will review, and the resulting audit report will
provide an opinion concerning, the use of airport revenue and taxes in
paragraph (a), and indicating whether funds paid or transferred to the owner or
operator are paid or transferred in a manner consistent with Title 49, United
States Code and any other applicable provision of law, including any regulation
promulgated by the Secretary or Administrator.
c. Any civil penalties or other sanctions will be imposed for violation of this
assurance in accordance with the provisions of Section 47107 of Title 49, United
States Code.
26. Reports and Inspections. It will:
a. submit to the Secretary such annual or special financial and operations reports
as the Secretary may reasonably request and make such reports available to the
public; make available to the public at reasonable times and places a report of
the airport budget in a format prescribed by the Secretary;
b. for airport development projects, make the airport and all airport records and
documents affecting the airport, including deeds, leases, operation and use
agreements, regulations and other instruments, available for inspection by any
duly authorized agent of the Secretary upon reasonable request;
c. for noise compatibility program projects, make records and documents relating
to the project and continued compliance with the terms, conditions, and
assurances of the grant agreement including deeds, leases, agreements,
regulations, and other instruments, available for inspection by any duly
authorized agent of the Secretary upon reasonable request; and
d. in a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, provide to the Secretary and
make available to the public following each of its fiscal years, an annual report
listing in detail:
(i) all amounts paid by the airport to any other unit of government and the
purposes for which each such payment was made; and
(ii) all services and property provided by the airport to other units of
government and the amount of compensation received for provision of each
such service and property.
26. Use by Government Aircraft. It will make available all of the facilities of the airport
developed with Federal financial assistance and all those usable for landing and takeoff of
aircraft to the United States for use by Government aircraft in common with other aircraft at
all times without charge, except, if the use by Government aircraft is substantial, charge may
be made for a reasonable share, proportional to such use, for the cost of operating and
maintaining the facilities used. Unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, or otherwise
agreed to by the sponsor and the using agency, substantial use of an airport by Government
aircraft will be considered to exist when operations of such aircraft are in excess of those
which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere with use of the landing areas by
other authorized aircraft, or during any calendar month that -
a. Five (5) or more Government aircraft are regularly based at the airport or on
land adjacent thereto; or
b. The total number of movements (counting each landing as a movement) of
Government aircraft is 300 or more, or the gross accumulative weight of
Government aircraft using the airport (the total movement of Government
aircraft multiplied by gross weights of such aircraft) is in excess of five
million pounds.
13
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
27. Land for Federal Facilities. It will furnish without cost to the Federal Government for use in
connection with any air traffic control or air navigation activities, or weather -reporting and communication
activities related to air traffic control, any areas of land or water, or estate therein, or rights in buildings of the
sponsor as the Secretary considers necessary or desirable for construction, operation, and maintenance at
Federal expense of space or facilities for such purposes. Such areas or any portion thereof will be made
available as provided herein within four months after receipt of a written request from the Secretary.
28. Airport Layout Plan.
It will keep up to date at all times an airport layout plan of the airport
showing (1) boundaries of the airport and all proposed additions thereto,
together with the boundaries of all offsite areas owned or controlled by
the sponsor for airport purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the
location and nature of all existing and proposed airport facilities and
structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons, terminal buildings,
hangars and roads), including all proposed extensions and reductions of
existing airport facilities; and (3) the location of all existing and proposed
nonaviation areas and of all existing improvements thereon. Such airport
layout plans and each amendment, revision, or modification thereof, shall
be subject to the approval of the Secretary which approval shall be
evidenced by the signature of a duly authorized representative of the
Secretary on the face of the airport layout plan. The sponsor will not
make or permit any changes or alterations in the airport or any of its
facilities which are not in conformity with the airport layout plan as
approved by the Secretary and which might, in the opinion of the
Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utility or efficiency of the airport.
b. If a change or alteration in the airport or the facilities is made which the
Secretary determines adversely affects the safety, utility, or efficiency of any
federally owned, leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is
not in conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary,
the owner or operator will, if requested, by the Secretary (1) eliminate such
adverse effect in a manner approved by the Secretary; or (2) bear all costs
of relocating such property (or replacement thereof) to a site acceptable to
the Secretary and all costs of restoring such property (or replacement
thereof) to the level of safety, utility, efficiency, and cost of operation existing
before the unapproved change in the airport or its facilities.
29. Civil Rights. It will comply with such rules as are promulgated to assure that no
person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or handicap be
excluded from participating in any activity conducted with or benefiting from funds received
from this grant. This assurance obligates the sponsor for the period during which Federal
financial assistance is extended to the program, except where Federal financial assistance is
to provide, or is in the form of personal property or real property or interest therein or
structures or improvements thereon in which case the assurance obligates the sponsor or
any transferee for the longer of the following periods: (a) the period during which the
property is used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended, or for
another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, or (b) the period
during which the sponsor retains ownership or possession of the property.
30. Disposal of Land.
a. For land purchased under a grant for airport noise
compatibility purposes, it will dispose of the land, when the land is no longer
needed for such purposes, at fair market value, at the earliest practicable time.
That portion of the proceeds of such disposition which is proportionate to the
14
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
United States' share of acquisition of such land will, at the discretion of the
Secretary, 1) be paid to the Secretary for deposit in the Trust Fund, or 2) be
reinvested in an approved noise compatibility project as prescribed by the
Secretary.
(1) For land purchased under a grant for airport development purposes (other
than noise compatibility), it will, when the land is no longer needed for airport
purposes, dispose of such land at fair market value or make available to the
Secretary an amount equal to the United States' proportionate share of the fair
market value of the land. That portion of the proceeds of such disposition which
is proportionate to the United States' share of the cost of acquisition of such land
will, (a) upon application to the Secretary, be reinvested in another eligible airport
improvement project or projects approved by the Secretary at that airport or
within the national airport system, or (b) be paid to the Secretary for deposit in
the Trust Fund if no eligible project exists.
(2) Land shall be considered to be needed for airport purposes under this
assurance if (a) it may be needed for aeronautical purposes (including runway
protection zones) or serve as noise buffer land, and (b) the revenue from interim
uses of such land contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport.
Further, land purchased with a grant received by an airport operator or owner
before December 31, 1987, will be considered to be needed for airport purposes
if the Secretary or Federal agency making such grant before December 31,
1987, was notified by the operator or owner of the uses of such land, did not
object to such use, and the land continues to be used for that purpose, such use
having commenced no later than December 15, 1989.
Disposition of such land under (a) or (b) will be subject to the retention or reservation
of any interest or right therein necessary to ensure that such land will only be used
for purposes which are compatible with noise levels associated with operation of the
airport.
31. Engineering and Design Services. It will award each contract, or sub -contract for program
management, construction management, planning studies, feasibility studies, architectural
services, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping or related services
with respect to the project in the same manner as a contract for architectural and engineering
services is negotiated under Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 or an equivalent qualifications -based requirement prescribed for or by the sponsor of the
airport.
32. Foreign Market Restrictions. It will not allow funds provided under this grant to be used to
fund any project which uses any product or service of a foreign country during the period in
which such foreign country is listed by the United States Trade Representative as denying
fair and equitable market opportunities for products and suppliers of the United States in
procurement and construction.
33. Policies, Standards, and Specifications. It will carry out the project in accordance with
policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to
the advisory circulars listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars for AIP projects, dated
and included in this grant, and in accordance with applicable state policies, standards,
and specifications approved by the Secretary.
34. Relocation and Real Property Acquisition. (1) It will be guided in acquiring real property,
to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by the land acquisition policies in Subpart
B of 49 CFR Part 24 and will pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as
specified in Subpart B. (2) It will provide a relocation assistance program offering the
services described in Subpart C and fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance
15
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
to displaced persons as required in Subpart D and E of 49 CFR Part 24. (3) It will make
available within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable replacement
dwellings to displaced persons in accordance with Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 24.
35. Access By Intercity Buses. The airport owner or operator will permit, to the maximum
extent practicable, intercity buses or other modes of transportation to have access to the
airport, however, it has no obligation to fund special facilities for intercity buses or for other
modes of transportation.
36. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of
race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted
contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26.
The Recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure
non discrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. The
recipient's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26, and as approved by DOT, is
incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal
obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement.
Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the
Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate
cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801).
CURRENT FAA ADVISORY CIRCULARS FOR AIP/PFC PROJECTS
Updated on: 7/1/99
The following apply to both AIP and PFC Proiects
NUMBER
TITLE
70/7460-1 J
Obstruction Marking and Lighting
150/5000-13
Announcement of Availability—
RTCA Inc., Document RTCA-221,
Guidance and Recommended
Requirements for Airport Surface
Movement Sensors
150/5210-513
Painting, Marking and Lighting of
Vehicles Used on an Airport
150/5210-713
Aircraft Fire and Rescue
Communications
150/5210-13A
Water Rescue Plans, Facilities,
and Equipment
150/5210-14A
Airport Fire and Rescue
Personnel Protective Clothing
150/5210-15
Airport Rescue & Firefighting
Station Building Design
150/5210-18
Systems for Interactive Training
16
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
17
of Airport Personnel
150/5210-19
Driver's Enhanced Vision System
(DEVS)
150/5220-413
Water Supply Systems for Aircraft
Fire and Rescue Protection
150/5220-10B
Guide Specification for
Water/Foam Type Aircraft
Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles
150/5220-13B
Runway Surface Condition
Sensor Specification Guide
150/5220-16B
Automated Weather Observing
Systems for NonFederal
Applications
150/5220-17A
Design Standards for Aircraft
Rescue Firefighting Training
Facilities
150/5220-18
Buildings for Storage and
Maintenance of Airport Snow and
Ice Control Equipment and
Materials
150/5220-19
Guide Specification for Small,
Dual -Agent Aircraft Rescue and
Firefighting Vehicles
150/5220-20
Airport Snow and Ice Control
CHG 1
Equipment
150/5220-21A
Guide Specification for Lifts Used
to Board Airline Passengers With
Mobility Impairments
150/5300-13
Airport Design
CHG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
150/5300-14
Design of Aircraft Deicing
Facilities
150/5320-5B
Airport Drainage
150/5320-6D
Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation
150/5320-12C
Measurement, Construction, and
Maintenance of Skid Resistant
Airport Pavement Surfaces
150/5320-14
Airport Landscaping for Noise
Control Purposes
150/5320-16
Airport Pavement Design for the
Boeing 777 Airplane
150/5325-4A
Runway Length Requirements for
CHG 1
Airport Design
150/5340-1 G
Standards for Airport Markings
17
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT
EMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
150/5340-4C
Installation Details for Runway
CHG 1 &2
Centerline Touchdown Zone
Lighting Systems
150/5340-513
Segmented Circle Airport Marker
CHG 1
System
150/5340-14B
Economy Approach Lighting Aids
CHG 1 &2
150/5340-17B
Standby Power for Non -FAA
Airport Lighting Systems
150/5340-18C
Standards for Airport Sign
CHG 1
Systems
150/5340-19
Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System
150/5340-21
Airport Miscellaneous Lighting
Visual Aids
150/5340-23B
Supplemental Wind Cones
150/5340-24
Runway and Taxiway Edge
CHG 1
Lighting System
150/5340-27A
Air -to -Ground Radio Control of
Airport Lighting Systems
150/5345-3D
Specification for L821 Panels for
Remote Control of Airport Lighting
150/5345-5A
Circuit Selector Switch
150/5345-7D
Specification for L824
CHG 1
Underground Electrical Cable for
Airport Lighting Circuits
150/5345-10E
Specification for Constant Current
Regulators Regulator Monitors
150/5345-12C
Specification for Airport and
Heliport Beacon
150/5345-13A
Specification for L841 Auxiliary
Relay Cabinet Assembly for Pilot
Control of Airport Lighting Circuits
150/5345-26B
Specification for L823 Plug and
CHG 1 & 2
Receptacle, Cable Connectors
150/5345-27C
Specification for Wind Cone
Assemblies
150/5345-28D
Precision Approach Path
CHG 1
Indicator (PAP[) Systems
150/5345-39B
FAA Specification L853, Runway
CHG 1
and Taxiway Centerline
Retroreflective Markers
150/5345-42C
Specification for Airport Light
CHG 1
Bases, Transformer Housings,
Junction Boxes and Accessories
150/5345-43E
Specification for Obstruction
M
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
150/5345-50
Lighting Equipment
150/5345-44F
Specification for Taxiway and
CHG 1
Runway Signs
150/5345-45A
Lightweight Approach Light
150/5345-52
Structure
150/5345-46A
Specification for Runway and
150/5345-53A
Taxiway Light Fixtures
150/5345-47A
Isolation Transformers for Airport
150/5360-9
Lighting Systems
150/5345-49A
Specification L854, Radio Control
Equipment
150/5345-50
Specification for Portable Runway
CHG 1
Lights
150/5345-51
Specification for Discharge -Type
CHG 1
Flasher Equipment
150/5345-52
Generic Visual Glideslope
Indicators (GVGI)
150/5345-53A
Airport Lighting Equipment
(including addendum)
Certification Program
150/5360-9
Planning and Design of Airport
Terminal Facilities at NonHub
Locations
150/5360-12A
Airport Signing & Graphics
150/5360-13
Planning and Design Guidance
CHG 1
for Airport Terminal Facilities
150/5370-2C
Operational Safety on Airports
During Construction
150/5370-10A
Standards for Specifying
CHG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Construction of Airports
150/5390-2A
Heliport Design
150/5390-3
Vertiport Design
The following apply
to AIP Proiects only
NUMBER
TITLE
150/5100-14C
Architectural, Engineering, and
Planning Consultant Services for
Airport Grant Projects
150/5200-30A
Airport Winter Safety and
CHG 1 &2
Operations
150/5200-33 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On
or Near Airports
150/5300-15 Use of Value Engineering for
Engineering Design of Airport
Grant Projects
150/5370-11 Use of Nondestructive Testing
19
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
CHG 1
Devices in the Evaluation of
Airport Pavements
150/5370-12
Quality Control of Construction for
Airport Grant Projects
150/5370-613
Construction Progress and
Inspection Report -Airport Grant
Program
The following apply
to PFC Projects only
NUMBER
TITLE
150/5000-12
Announcement of Availability -
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
Application (FAA Form 5500-1)
20
ACCOUNTING & FINANCE DEPT.
John A. Cushman, Town Comptroller
Telephone (631) 765-4333
Fax(631)765-1366
E-mail: accounting@town.southold.ny.us
o�oSUFFoc,��oG
O
C4 =
oy� • o��
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Phil Knauff, FIFD
FROM: John Cushman, Town Comptroller
DATE: October 26, 2001
PAGES: 2 (including cover)
RE: FAA 2002 AIP Program — Fishers Island Airport
MESSAGE:
With regard to the attached, please advise how we should proceed.
cc: Town Board
TOWN HALL ANNEX
Feather Hill, Building 10
620 Traveler Street
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
0
r -
L
�4W
U. S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Mrs. Jean W. Cocharn
Supervisor
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
New York Airports District Office
600 Old Country Rd, Suite 446
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: 516-227-3800
Fax: 516-227-3813
October 22, 2001
Dear Mrs. Cocharn:
RE: FY -2002 AIP Program
Fishers Island Airport, N.Y.
In anticipation of the passage of an AIP appropriation bill for Fiscal Year
2002, we are reviewing our proposed program for this fiscal year. We would
appreciate your review and concurrence with the projects and funding listed
below.
Approximate Available Entitlement funds:
Non -primary Entitlement Funds FY -02 .......................................$150, 000
Carry-over from FY -01 or prior ......................................................$150, 000
Passenger Entitlement Funds FY -02 .............................................
Carry-over from FY -01 or prior ......................................................
Cargo Entitlement Fund FY-02............................................................
Carry-over from FY -01 or prior ......................................................
As you know, state apportionment and discretionary funds may be available to
fund projects on a priority basis.
After reviewing your Five Year Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) and
consulting with the New York State Department of Transportation, we have
identified the following items of development at the subject airport for
probable funding this fiscal year under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP):
PROJECT FEDERAL FUNDS* ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS**
Install Perimeter Fencing $300,000(NP) Needs EA
* Please note that there is a preliminary indication of funding type, (NP) for
non -primary entitlement, (E) for passenger entitlement, (C) for cargo
entitlement, (ST) for state apportionment and (D) for discretionary funds,
however, this does not represent any form of funding commitment.
** Please note that this recommendation is based on the brief description of the
project above. Please call Ms. Maria Stanco at (516) 227-3808, when more project
details are known, to confirm that you are preparing fbe appropriate
environmental form. :
�ff �
6666
�T
C- x
Please review the proposed projects listed above, and contact your NYADO
representative as soon as possible to advise whether you concur with the project
and the estimated amount.
PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
To retain the good funding prospects of the above development, you must submit
the following ACIP attachments by December 1, 2001, if you have not already
forwarded them with your ACIP submittal.
• A sketch of the project
• A project narrative statement and justification
• Project cost estimate
• Intergovernmental Review: Submit project notice to the appropriate local
governmental entities for comment.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
By January 2, 2002, you must submit the appropriate environmental document:
Environmental Evaluation Form A, B, C or an Environmental Assessment. Forms are
available at http://www.faa.gov/arp/aea.
We hope to issue Grant Offers for the development listed above in time for the
2002 construction season. To accomplish this we must have your continued
cooperation.
To recap,
• Immediately review the proposed projects and contact
your NYADO rep
• By December 1, 2001 send in the project
documentation
0
• By January 2, 2002 send in your environmental review
for each project.
Should you have any questions, please contact your NYADO representative.
Sincere],
Philip Brifo
Manager
New York Airports Di
rict Office
i
GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI h,1► Gy
TOWN ATTORNEY c
CA =
MARY C. WILSON Oifi
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
JEAN W. COCHRAN
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1889
Fax (631) 765-1823
E-mail: townattorney@southold.org
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth A. Neville,
Town Clerk
From: Mary C. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
Date: March 27, 2001
Re: Original Contract Documents
Application FY2001— Elizabeth Airport improvements
Attached please find the following:
❖ Five (5) copies of Final Application for Federal Assistance
FY2000 ($150, 000.00) signed by Supervisor Cochran
❖ Resolution No. V-156
❖ Transmittal letter dated 1112101 to R. Philip Knauff from CSS
Companies
Please see that the documents are forwarded to the appropriate parties and retain a
copy for your file.
Thank you.
/md
attachments
14
OMB Approval No. 0348-00
APPLICATION FOR
2. DATE UB D
APPLICANT IE IFI R
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
01/11/2001
211
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION:
3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE
STATE APPLICANT IDENTIFIER
Application Preappllcatlon
Construction El Construction
0913.
4. UATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY
FEDERAL IDENTIFIER
OX Non -Const. F—] Non -Const.
3-36-0029-
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name:
ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT:
Town of Southold
Fishers Island Ferry District
Address (give city, county, state, and zip code)
NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ON MATTERS
INVOLVING THIS APPLICATION (give area code):
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
R. Philip Knauff
Southold, NY 11971
(631) 788-7463
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):
0 3 3 0 7
7. TYPE OF APPLICANT (enter appropriate letter In box): D
A. State H. Independent School Dist
B. County I. State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning
C. Municipal J. Private University
8, TYPE OF APPLICATION:
D. Township K Indian Tribe
0 New 0 Continuation 0 Revision
E. Interstate L. Individual
F. Intermunicipal M. Profit Organization
If Revision, enter appropriate letters) in box(es): O F-1
G. Special District N. Other (S eci )
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award C. Increase Duration
D. Decrease Duration Other (Specify):
9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC
11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT:
ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 1 2 0 0 1 0 6
TITLE: Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Terminal Apron - Phase 1
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (ckles, countles, states, etc.)
Fishers Island
13. PROPOSED PROJECT:
14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date
Ending Date
a. Applicant
b. Project
2nd
2nd
15. ESTIMATED FUNDING:
16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a Federal
$ UU
a. YES XD This Preapplication/Application Was Made Available To The
State Executive Order 12373 Process For Review On
Date: submitted 01/11/01
b Applicant
$ .00
c State
$ .00
b. NO Program Is Not Covered By E.O. 12373
d Local
$ .00
Or Program Has Not Been Selected By State For Review
e Other
$ .00
f Program Income
$ UU
17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
F-1 Yes. If "Yes," attach an explanation. XD No
g TOTAL
$ .00
18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a Typed Name of Authorized Representative
b Title
c Telephone number
Jean Cochran
Town Supervisor
(631) 765-1889
d Signature of Authorized Representat e
e Date Signed
Previous Editions Not Usable `/ sianaard Form 424 (ncv 4-88)
Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
Authorized for Local Reproduction
10
'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
OMS NO. 60-RO1R4
PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION - CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A - GENERAL
1. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No .................. 20.106
2. Functional or Other Breakout ...........................
SECTION B - CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT
Cost Classification
Use only for revisions
Total
Amount
Required
Latest Approved
Amount
Adjustment
+ or (-)
1. Administration expense
$5,000
2. Preliminary expense
$0
3. Land, structures, right-of-way
$0
4. Architectural engineering basic fees
$156,667
5. Other architectural engineering fees
$0
6. Project inspection fees
$0
7. Land development
$0
8. Relocation Expenses
$0
9. Relocation payments to Individuals and Businesses
$0
10. Demolition and removal
$0
11. Construction & project improvement
$0
12. Equipment
$0
13. Miscellaneous
$5,000
14. Total Lines 1 through 13
$166,667
15. Estimated Income if applicable)
$0
16. Net Project Amount Line 14 minus 15
$166,667
17. Less: Ineligible Exclusions
$0
18. Add: Contingencies
$0
19. Total Project Amt.(Excluding Rehabilitation Grants
$166,667
20. Federal Share requested of Line 19 90.00%
$150,000
21. Add Rehabilitation Grants Requested 100 Percent
$0
22. Total Federal grant requested Lines 20 & 21
$150,000
23. Grantee share 5.00%
$8,334
24. Other shares 5.00%
$8,333
25. Total project Lines 22, 23 & 24
$166,667
FAA Form 5100-100 (6-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100 - 10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
O M B N O. 80-R O 184
FAA Form 5100-100 (8-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100-10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 5
FAA AC 75.0232
SECTION C - EXCLUSIONS
Classification
Ineligible for
Participation
(1)
Excluded from
Contingency Provision
(2) 1
26
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Total
SECTION D - PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON-FEDERAL SHARE
27 Grantee Share
a. Securities
b. Mortgages
c. Appropriation (By Applicant)
d. Bonds
e. Tax Levies
f. Non Cash
g. Other (Explain)
h. TOTAL - Grantee share
5.00%
$8,334
28. Other Shares
a. State
5.00%
$8,333
b. Other
c. Total Other Shares
29. TOTAL
$16,667
SECTION E - REMARKS
PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach -See Instructions)
FAA Form 5100-100 (8-73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100-10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Page 5
FAA AC 75.0232
PART IV: PROGRAM NARRATIVE
F'isher's Island — Elizabeth Field
Project Narrative Statement
Terminal Apron — Phase I
Descriution: This project includes Phase I of a new Terminal Apron.
Justification: The existing Terminal Apron is in poor condition and requires reconstruction,
however because the existing apon is located in the Runway Safety Area, it is
necessary to construct a new apron.
Consistency with ALP/FAA Standards
This project is recommended in the Airport Master Plan and appears on the e x i( i ng Airport Layout
Plan.
Consultation with Users
Fisher's Island Ferry District confirm that Operators at Elizabeth Field have been consulted and are
aware of the proposed development project.
Displaced Persons Statement
The airport project proposed in this aid application does not involve the displacement or relocation of
persons residing on land needed for such development.
Specific Opposition Statement
Fisher's Island Ferry District is not aware of any significant community opposition to the proposed
project.
EDRk5TR2AN AVE
i
i SILVER EEL COVE
too
J {�_ FI%ERS ISLAND
ROAD
TRJ6U L DRIVE O
J / Y
ePAINBC
a ♦ ® /TENNIS
^
/, TENNIS
1 0
/;• f�\\ � � —QED i��L� .
--� % � ll
ETS 1Ec
Dur —S/ 1
APRON
EXISTING RMAY PROTECTION
ZONE 00 PLANNED CHANGE)
/
EXISTINGG
4p _ iii % � RELOCATED r
THRESHOLD
WIND cow NEN T=STATE PLANE COORDINATE VALUES
OCATED — --_ -' $ 9� NORTH EAST
THRESHOLD - - x
. `-�--�_� \/•.� EXISTING RUNWAY PROTECTION - AIRP i
9.156
ZONE 010 PLANED CHANGE) BIN Q NGEND UPAY�T. 380262534 253 380141025 9 42.6 0
d r ' — — _ / 91N 30 END PAV'T. 379794.076 2542512.384
10 07 END PAV'T. 379618.274 2540199.670
�%— �;o — — _ WX 25 END PAV'T. 380653.373 2541990.057
//
�-'�--
// \_ (� GRID IS BASED ON NEN YORK STATE PIANS
�� — COORDINATE SYSTEK LONG ISLAND ZONE�{ RELOCATED THRESHOLD .
AREA c 195 ACRES (TITLE IN FEE)
i
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
T.
.� FUNDING
LEGEND
_ PAVED ROAD
$ I --- DIRT ROAD
- - � BuILDO¢
----- COAST LINE
�•N^' PROPERTY LINE
ROTA DOL*QART
200 2 I T.
Zoo
LAND ACOUISITI�i TABLE
PARCEL
REVISIONS
TONIN of SOUTHOID FISHERS ISLANO.NEN YORK
ELIZABETH FIELD AIRPORT
BY DATE C)IAN((6
filAlfTgt
�pssjTE � � AOE'1Cf
DESIGNED: DE ORA RN: JC7
1
i
UILrm STafES a upHjta
afwT% 16
OLA 4/VIiR
REVISIONS
TONIN of SOUTHOID FISHERS ISLANO.NEN YORK
ELIZABETH FIELD AIRPORT
BY DATE C)IAN((6
AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP
DESIGNED: DE ORA RN: JC7
SHEET I OF
CHECXED: GE DATE: FEBRUARY, 1991
PROJECT FILE N0.:20.00I.00H CaOD FILE NO.: 46 �u00i
��,- �abceri�s 8 Spina
r
Q
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
RECEIVED
APR 14 1997
Southold Town Clock
Memorandum
Subject: ACTION: Required Annual Reports Due to the Date: April 11, 1997
Civil Rights Staff for Each Fiscal Year (October
1 st - September 30th)
Reply to
From: Manager, Airports External DBE/ADA Attn. of:
Compliance Programs, AEA -9
To: Airport Sponsors/Recipients
In order to help you assist us more efficiently, the following memo has been
prepared to remind you of the annual reports, which are due to this office each
fiscal year (October 1st - September 30th):
1) Report of DBE Goal Accomplishments, DOT F Form 4630 - Each obligated
airport sponsor is required to complete the subject form and submit to this office
NLT October 1st each fiscal year, for the prior fiscal year. Please note in order
for this form to be completed properly, Box 10b, 12 total and 13 total must all be
the same figure. Also, the information contained in Box 13 must be
disseminated among the various groups.
2) Report of Certified DBE Contractors Used on FAA - Assisted Contracts
Firms - All obligated sponsors should include all types of FAA - Assisted
Contracts in which DBE's participated, including construction, professional
services, supplies and equipment. These reports are due in this office NLT
November 28, each fiscal year, for the prior fiscal year.
3) DBE Program Update - This report is due in this office NLT September 1st
each year reflecting your updated DBE percentage goals for construction and
professional services. Additionally, primary airports must also include their
proposed DBE participation percentage goals in concessions.
4) Concession Reports - (Only Primary Airports - 10.000 enplanements or more)
- This report has three portions and all are due in this office by February 15th
each year (not to be confused with you DBE Program Update)
a. Summary Accomplishment Report - includes only the gross receipts
earned by concessionaires or net payment to the airport. Please include
gross receipts from all DBE and non -DBE concessions, including airport
hotels and car rentals.
2
b. Report of Certified DBE Concessions Counted Toward Goals - All
obligated sponsors are required to complete subject form.
c. Also, on white bond paper, please report:
1 - Gross receipts earned by all concessionaires (sum of Actual
Gross Receipts "reported on annual Accomplishment Report").
2 - Gross receipts earned by all DBE concessionaires (sum of
"$ DBE" column reported on "Accomplishment Report").
3 - Percentage of DBE participation.
4 - Total number of auto rental concessions.
5 - Number of DBE auto rental concessions.
6 - Gross receipts earned by DBE auto rental concessions (as
reported under I DBE" column on "Accomplishment Report" for
firms identified as auto rentals under "Business Type").
Please review this memo, prepare the required reports and submit them to this
office on or before the required deadline date.
We greatly appreciate your cooperation and thank you for the timely submission
of the aforementioned reports.
If additional information is required, please feel free to contact me on (718) 553-
3299.
(i array M. Gottlieb
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 28, 1998
Mr. Philip Brito, Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
181 South Franklin Avenue, Room 305
Valley Stream, New York 11581
Dear Mr. Brito:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
Please be advised that the Southold Town Board adopted a resolution
at their regular meeting held on October 27, 1998 authorizing the execution
of Revision #1 to the Airport Improvement Program Master Agreement. A
certified copy of that resolution is enclosed, together with a fully
executed copy of the agreement.
If you need any further copies, please contact my office at 516
765-1800.
Very truly yours,
61
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Town Comptroller
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
ro %\'fFOL,-
OGy
CM
NPry
2
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON OCTOBER 27, 1998:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes
and directs Supervisor Jean W. Cochran to execute Revision Number One
(1) to the Airport Improvement Program Master Agreement on Terms and
Conditions of Accepting Airport Improvement Program Grants, as required
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
for incorporation into every Grant Agreement executed after October 1,
1998 for Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island, New York, said agreement and
revision all in accordance with the approval of the Town Attorney.
I Amq /%
74040
izabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
October 27, 1998
U. S. Department of Transportation
federa/Aviation
Administration
Revision #1: October 1, 1998
SPONSOR: Town of Southhold, New York
AIRPORT: Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island, New York
MASTER AGREEMENT ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
This document contains the terms and conditions of accepting Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code. These terms and conditions become
applicable when the sponsor accepts a Grant Offer from the FAA that references this document. The terms and conditions may be
unilaterally amended by the FAA, by notification in writing, and such amendment will only apply to grants accepted after notification.
I. DEFINITIONS
A. Sponsor - An agency that is legally, financially, and otherwise able to assume and carry out the certifications, representations,
warranties, assurances, covenants and other obligations required in this document and in the accepted Grant Agreement.
B. Project - Work as identified in the Grant Agreement.
C. Primary Airport - a commercial service airport the Secretary of Transportation determines to have more than 10,000 passenger
boardings each year.
II. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by the FAA to be ineligible for consideration under the Title
49 U.S.C..
B. Payment of the United States' share of the allowable project costs will be made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions
of such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe. Final determination of the United States' share will be based
upon the final audit of the total amount of allowable project costs, and settlement will be made for any upward or downward
adjustments to the Federal share of costs.
C. The Sponsor shall carry out and complete the Project without undue delays and in accordance with the terms hereof, and such
regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe.
D. The FAA reserves the right to amend or withdraw a grant offer at any time prior to its acceptance by the Sponsor.
E. A grant offer will expire, and the United States shall not be obligated to pay any part of the costs of the project unless the grant
offer has been accepted by the Sponsor on or before 60 days after the grant offer but no later than September 30 of the federal
fiscal year the grant offer was made, or such subsequent date as may be prescribed in writing by the FAA.
1
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision f11: October 1 1998
F. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover Federal funds spent fraudulently, wastefully, or in
violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any manner in any project upon which Federal funds have been expended. For
the purposes of this grant agreement, the term "Federal funds" means funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor that were
originally paid pursuant to this or any other Federal grant agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the Secretary as to any
determination of the amount of the Federal share of such funds. It shall return the recovered Federal share, including funds
recovered by settlement, order or judgment, to the Secretary. It shall furnish to the Secretary, upon request, all documents and
records pertaining to the determination of the amount of the Federal share or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation, or other
efforts taken to recover such funds. All settlements or other final positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise, involving the
recovery of such Federal share shall be approved in advance by the Secretary.
G. The United States shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons which may arise from, or be incident
to, compliance with a grant agreement.
H. If, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that a grant amount exceeds the expected needs of the Sponsor by $5,000 or
five percent 15%I, whichever is greater, a grant amount can be unilaterally reduced by letter from FAA advising of the budget
change. Conversely, with the exception of planning projects, if there is an overrun in the eligible project costs, FAA may increase a
grant for an airport development project to cover the amount of the overrun not to exceed 15% percent of the original grant amount.
For a grant for non -primary airports to acquire an interest in land, the FAA may increase the grant amount by not more than the
greater of the following, based on current creditable appraisals or a court award in a condemnation proceeding , (1)15% percent of
the original grant amount or (21 25% percent of the total 'increase in allowable project costs attributable to acquiring an interest in
land. FAA will advise the Sponsor by letter of the increase. Planning projects will not be increased above the planning portion of the
maximum obligation of the United States shown in the grant agreement. Upon issuance of either of the aforementioned letters, the
maximum obligatnon of the United States is adjusted to the amount specified. In addition, the Sponsor's officially designated
representative, is authorized to request FAA concurrence in revising the project description and grant amount within statutory
limitations. A letter from the FAA concurring in the said requested revision to the project work description and grant amount shall
constitute an amendment to a Grant Agreement.
I. If requested by the Sponsor and authorized by the FAA, the letter of credit method of payment may be used It is understood and
agreed that the sponsor agrees to request cash withdrawals on the letter of credit only when actually needed for its disbursements
and to timely reporting of such disbursements as required It is understood that failure to adhere to this provision may cause the
letter of credit to be revoked.
J. Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, the Sponsor will not acquire or permit any contractor or subcontractor to acquire any steel
or manufactured products produced outside the United States to be used for any project for airport development or noise
compatibility for which funds are provided under this grant. The sponsor will include in every contract a provision implementing this
condition.
K.. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Sponsor shah complete this project to provide a safe and
usable unit.
L It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the typewritten description of airport development appearkV in
Item 11 of the Project Application is hereby deleted and the typewritten description of. airport development appearing on Page 1 of
the Grant Offer is substituted in its place and stead..
M. Private sponsors shall provide, when requested by the FAA, for an audit of the project to be made at the completion of the grant
objective in accordance with accepted standard audit practices. Two copies of that audit shall be forwarded to the FAA. Airports
District Office.
2
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 1 1998
III. ASSURANCES
A. General.
1. These assurances shall be complied with in the performance of grant agreements for airport development,
airport planning, and noise compatibility program grants for airport sponsors.
2. These assurances are required to be submitted as part of the project application by sponsors requesting
funds under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended. As used herein, the term "public
agency sponsor" means a public agency with control of a public -use airport; the term "private sponsor"
means a private owner of a public -use airport; and the term "sponsor" includes both public agency
sponsors and private sponsors.
3. Upon acceptance of the grant offer by the sponsor, these assurances are incorporated in and become part
of the grant agreement.
B. Duration and Applicability.
1. Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Public Agency
Sponsor. The terms, conditions and assurances of the grant agreement shall remain in full force and
effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment acquired for an airport
development or noise compatibility program project, or throughout the useful life of the project items
installed within a facility under a noise compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed
twenty (20) years from the date of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project. However,
there shag be no limit on the duration of the assurance against exclusive rights or the terms, conditions
and assurances with respect to real property acquired with Federal funds. Furthermore, the duration of
the Civil Rights assurance shall be specified in the assurances. .
2. Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Projects Undertaken by a Private Sponsor. The
preceding paragraph 1 also applies to a private sponsor except that the useful life of project items
installed within a facility or the useful fife of the facilities developed or equipment acquired under an
airport development or noise compatibility program project shall be no less than ten (10) years from the
date of acceptance of Federal aid for the project.
3. Airport Planning Undertaken by a Sponsor. Unless otherwise specified in the grant agreement, only
Assurances 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 18, 30, 32, 33, and 34 in section C apply to planting projects. The tents,
conditions, and assurances of the grant agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the fife of
the project.
C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certifies, with respect to this grant that:
1. General Federal Requirements. It will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive
orders, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of
Federal funds for this project including but not limited to the following:
Federal Legislation
a. Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended.
b. Davis -Bacon Act - 40 U.S.C. 276(a), at sea -1
C. Federal Fair labor Standards Act - 29 U.S.C. 201, !LM
-
d. Hatch Act - 5 U.S.C. 1501, et sea•2
L Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 True 42 U.S.C. 4601, at sea.
12
f. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 -Section 106.16 U.S.C. 470(fl.1
f. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
16 U.S.C. 469 through
469c.1
h. Native Americans Grave Repatriation Act - 25 U.S.C. Section 3001, et sea.
i. Clean Air Act, P.L. 90.148, as emended.
i. Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 93.205, as amended.
k. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 - Section 102(a) - 42 U.S.C. 4012a.1
I. Title 49 ,U.S.C., Section 303, (formerly known as Section 4(f I)
M. Rehabilitation Act of 1973.29 U.S.C. 794.
3
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision qt: October 1 1998
n. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VI.42 U.S.C. 2000d through d4.
o. Age Discrimination Act of 1975.42 U.S.C. 6101, et sea.
p. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95.341, as amended.
q Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.42 U.S.C. 4151, et sea.1
r. Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 - Section 403- 2 U.S.C. 8373.1
S. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act - 40 U.S.C. 327, et sen.1
t. Copeland Antikickback Act -18 U.S.C. 874.1
U. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - 42 U.S.C. 4321, et sea.1
V. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90.542, as amended.
W. Single Audit Act of 1984.31 U.S.C. 7501, et sea.2
X. Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988.41 U.S.C. 702 through 706.
Executive Orders
Executive Order 11246 - Equal Employment Opportunityl
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11998 - FloodPlain Management
Executive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
Executive Order 12699 - Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted New Building
Construction)
Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice
Federal Regulations
a. 14 CFR Part 13 - Investigative and Enforcement Procedures.
b. 14 CFR Part 16 - Rules of Practice For Federally
Assisted Airport Enforcement
Proceedings.
C. 14 CFR Part 150 - Airport noise compatibility planning.
d. 29 CFR Part 1- Procedures for predetermination of wage rates.)
e. 29 CFR Part 3 - Contractors and subcontractors on public building or public work
financed in whole or part by loans or grants from the United States.)
f 29 CFR Part 5 - Labor standards provisions applicable to contracts covering federally
financed and assisted constriction (also labor standards provisions applicable to
nonconstruction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act).1
9. 41 CFR Part 60.Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal
Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor (Federal and federally assisted
contracting requirements),I
h. 49 CFR Part 18 - Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements to state and local governments.
i. 49 CFR Part 20 - New restrictions on lobbying.
j. 49 CFR Part 21- Nondiscriminafton in federally -assisted programs of the Department
of Transportation - effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
k. 49 CFR Part 23 - Participation by minority business enterprise in Department of
Transportation programs.
I. 49 CFR Part 24 - Uniform relocation assistance and real property acquisition for
Federal and federally assisted programs.) 2
M. 49 CFR Part 27 . Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and
activities receiving or benefitfmg from Federal financial assistance.)
n. 49 CFR Part 29 - Govemmentwide debarment and suspension (non -procurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
o. 49 CFR Part 30 • Denial of public works contracts to suppliers of goods and services
of countries that deny procurement market access to U.S. contractors.
P. 49 CFR Part 41- Seismic safety of Federal and federally assisted or regulated new
building construction.)
Office of Management and Budget Circulars
4
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 1 1998
2.
Hl
4.
5.
a. A-87 - Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State and Local
Governments.
b A-128 - Audits of State and Local Governments.
I These laws do not apply to airport planning sponsors.
2 These laws do not apply to private sponsors.
3 49 CFR Part 18 and OMB Circular A-87 contain requirements for State and Local
Governments receiving Federal assistance. Any requirement levied upon State and
Local Governments by this regulation and circular shall also be applicable to private
sponsors receiving Federal assistance under Title 49, United States Code.
Specific assurances required to be included in grant agreements by any of the above laws, regulations or
circulars are incorporated by reference in the grant agreement.
Responsibility and Authority of the Sponsor.
a. Public Agency Sponsor: It has legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance
and carry out the proposed project; that a resolution, motion or similar action has
been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body
authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances
contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official
representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to
provide such additional information as may be required. .
b. Private Sponsor. It has legal authority to apply for the grant and to finance and
carry out the proposed project and comply with all terms, conditions, and assurances
of this grant agreement. It shall designate an official representative and shall in
writing direct and authorize that person to file this application, including all
understandings and assurances contained therein; to act in connection with this
application; and to provide such additional information as may be required.
Sponsor Fund Availability. It has sufficient funds available for that portion of the project costs which are
not to be paid by the United States. It has sufficient funds available to assure operation and maintenance of
items funded under the grant agreement which it will own or control.
Good Title.
a. It holds good title, satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or
site thereof, or will give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good title will
be acquired.
b. For noise compatibility program projects to be carried out on the property of the
sponsor, it holds good title satisfactory to the Secretary to that portion of the
property upon which Federal funds will be expended or will give assurance to the
Secretary that good title will be obtained.
Preserving Rights and Powers.
e. It will not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of the
rights and powers necessary to perform any or all of the terms, conditions, and
assurances in the grant agreement without the written approval of the Secretary,
and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or
claims. of right of others which would interfere with such performance by the
sponsor. This shall be done in a manner acceptable to the Secretary.
b. It will not sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its
title or other interests in the property shown on Exhibit A to this application or, for a
raise compatibility program project, that portion of the property upon which Federal
funds have been expended, for the duration of the terns, conditions, and assurances
in the grant agreement without approval by the Secretary. If the transferee is found
by the Secretary to be eligible under Title 49, United States Code, to assume the
obligations of the grant agreement and to have the power, authority, and financial
resources to carry out all such obligations, the sponsor shall insert in the contract or
document transferring or disposing of the sponsor's interest, and make binding upon
the transferee all of the terms, conditions, and assurances contained in this grant
agreement.
5
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 11998
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
C. For all noise compatibility program projects which are to be carried out by another
unit of local government or are on property owned by a unit of local government
other than the sponsor, it will enter into an agreement with that government. Except
as otherwise specified by the Secretary, that agreement shall obligate that
government to the same terms, conditions, and assurances that would be applicable
to it if it applied directly to the FAA for a grant to undertake the noise compatibility
program project. That agreement and changes thereto must be satisfactory to the
Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this agreement against the local government
if there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
d. For noise compatibility program projects to be carried out on privately owned
property, it will enter into an agreement with the owner of that property which
includes provisions specified by the Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this
agreement against the property owner whenever there is substantial non-compliance
with the terms of the agreement.
e. If the sponsor is a private sponsor, it will take steps satisfactory to the Secretary to
ensure that the airport will continue to function as a public -use airport in accordance
with these assurances for the duration of these assurances.
I. If an arrangement is made for management and operation of the airport by any
agency or person other than the sponsor or an employee of the sponsor, the sponsor
will reserve sufficient rights and authority to insure that the airport will be operated
and maintained in accordance Title 49, United States Code, the regulations and the
terms, conditions and assurances in the grant agreement and shall insure that such
arrangement also requires compliance therewith.
Consistency with Local Plans. The project is reasonably consistent with plans (existing at the time of
submission of this application) of public agencies that are authorized by the State in which the project is
located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport. For noise compatibility program
projects, other than land acquisition, to be carried out on property not owned by the airport and over
which property another agency has land use control or authority, the sponsor shall obtain from each such
agency a written declaration that such agency supports that project and the project is reasonably
consistent with the agency's plans regarding the property.
Consideration of local Interest it has given fair consideration to the interest of communities in or near
where the project may be located.
Consultation with Users. In making a decision to undertake any airport development project under Title
49, United States Code, it has undertaken reasonable consultations with affected parties using the *port
at which project is proposed.
Public Hearings. In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway, or a major runway
extension, it has afforded the opportunity for public hearings for the purpose of considering the economic,
social, and emrironmental effects of the airport or runway location and its consistency with goals and
objectives of such planning as has been carried out by the community and it shall, when requested by the
Secretary, submit a copy of the transcript of such hearings to the Secretary. Further, for such projects, it
has on its management board either voting representation from the communities where the project is
located or has advised the communities that they have the right to petition the Secretary concerning a
proposed project.
Air and Water Quality Standards. In projects involving airport location, a major runway extension, or
runway location it will provide for the Governor of the state in which the project is located to certify in
writing to the Secretary that the project will be located, designed, constructed, and operated so as to
comply with applicable air and water quality standards.. In any case where such standards have not been
approved and where applicable air and water quality standards have been promulgated by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, certification shall be obtained from such
Administrator. Notice of certification or refusal to certify shalt be provided within sixty days after the
project application has been received by the Secretary.
Pavement Preventive Maintenance. With respect to a project approved after January 1, 1995, for the
replacement or reconstruction of pavement at the airport, it assures or certifies that it has implemented
an effective airport pavement maintenance -management program and it assures that it will use such
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 11998
program for the useful life of any pavement constructed, reconstructed or repaired with Federal financial
assistance at the airport. It will provide such reports on pavement condition and pavement management
programs as the Secretary determines may be useful.
12. Terminal Development Prerequisites. For projects which include terminal development at a public use
airport, as defined in Title 49, it has, on the date of submittal of the project grant application, all the
safety equipment required for certification of such airport under section 44706 of Title 49, United States
Code, and all the security equipment required by rule or regulation, and has provided for access to the
passenger enplaning and deplaning area of such airport to passengers enplaning and deplaning from
aircraft other than air carrier aircraft.
13. Accounting System, Audit, and Recordkeeping Requirements.
a. It shall keep all project accounts and records which fully disclose the amount and
disposition by the recipient of the proceeds of the grant, the total cost of the project
in connection with which the grant is given or used, and the amount or nature of
that portion of the cost of the project supplied by other sources, and such other
financial records pertinent to the project. The accounts and records shall be kept in
accordance with an accounting system that will facilitate an effective audit in
accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984.
b. It shall make available to the Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United
States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, for the purpose of audit and
examination, any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient that are
pertinent to the grant. The Secretary may require that an appropriate audit be
conducted by a recipient. In any case in which an independent audit is made of the
accounts of a sponsor relating to the disposition of the proceeds of a grant or
relating to the project in connection with which the grant was given or used, it shall
file a certified copy of such audit with the Comptroller General of the United States
not later than six 161 months following the close of the fiscal year for which the
audit was made.
14. Minimum Wage Rates. It shag include, in all contracts in excess of $2,000 for work on any projects
funded under the grant agreement which involve labor, provisions establishing minimum rates of wages, to
be predetermined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis -Bacon Act, as amended (40
U.S.C. 276a -276a-51, which contractors shag pay to skilled and unskilled labor, and such minimum rates
shag be stated in the invitation for bids and shall be Included in proposals or bids for the work.
15. Veteran's Preference. It shall include in all contracts for work on any project funded under the grant
agreement which involve labor, such provisions as are necessary to insure that, in the employment of
labor (except in executive, administrative, and supervisory positions►, preference shall be given to Veterans
of the Vietnam era and disabled veterans as defined in Section 47112 of Title.49, United States Code.
However, this preference shad apply only where the individuals aro available and qualified to perform the
work to which the employment relates.
16. Conformity to Plans and Specifications. It will execute the project subject to plans, specifications,
and schedules approved by the Secretary. Such plans, specifications, and schedules shall be submitted to
the Secretary prior to commencement of site preparation, construction, or other performance under this
grant agreement, and, upon approval of the Secretary, shall be incorporated into this grant agreement.
Any modification to the approved plans, specifications, and schedules shall also be subject to approval of
the Secretary, and incorporated into the grant agreement.
17. Construction Inspection and Approval It will provide and maintain competent technical supervision at
the construction site throughout the project to assure that the work conforms to the plans, specifications,
and schedules approved by the Secretary for the project. It shag subject the construction work on any
project contained in an approved project application to inspection and approval by the Secretary and such
work shall be in accordance with regulations and procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Such
regulations and procedures shall require such cost and progress reporting by the sponsor or sponsors of
such project as the Secretary shall deem necessary.
18. Planning Projects. In carrying out planning projects:
a. It will execute the project in accordance with the approved program narrative
contained in the project application or with the modifications similarly approved.
7
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 11998
b. It will furnish the Secretary with such periodic reports as required pertaining to the
planning project and planning work activities.
C. It will include in all published material prepared in connection with the -planning
project a notice that the material was prepared under a grant provided by the United
States.
d. It will make such material available for examination by the public, and agrees that no
material prepared with funds under this project shall be subject to copyright in the
United States or any other country.
e. It will give the Secretary unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and
otherwise use any of the material prepared in connection with this grant.
f. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the sponsor's employment of
specific consultants and their subcontractors to do all or any part of this project as
well as the right to disapprove the proposed scope and cost of professional services.
g. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the use of the sponsor's employees
to do all or any part of the project.
h. It understands and agrees that the Secretary's approval of this project grant or the
Secretary's approval of any planning material developed as part of this grant does
not constitute or imply any assurance or commitment on the part of the Secretary to
approve any pending or future application for a Federal airport grant.
19. Operation and Maintenance.
a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of
the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, shall be
operated at all tines in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the
minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state and
local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or permit any activity
or action thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes. It will
suitably operate and maintain the airport and all facilities thereon or connected
therewith, with due regard to climatic and flood conditions. Any proposal to
temporarily dose the airport for nonaeronautical purposes must first be approved by
the Secretary.
In furtherance of this assurance, the sponsor will have in effect arrangements for -
(1) Operating the airport's aeronautical fadlities whenever required;
(2) Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from airport
conditions, incWmg temporary conditions, and
(31 Promptly notrfying airmen of any conation affecting aeronautical use
of the airport.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require that the airport be operated
for aeronautical use during temporary periods when snow, flood or other climatic
conations interfere with such operation and maintenance. Further, nothing herein
shall be construed as requiring the maintenance, repair, restoration, or replacement
of any structure or facility which is substantially damaged or destroyed due to an
act of God or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the sponsor.
b. It will suitably operate and maintain noise compatibility program items that it owns
or controls upon which Federal funds have been expended.
20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace
as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum
fright akitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or
lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of
future airport hazards.
21. Compatible Land Use. It wig take appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, to the
extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of
aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility program implementation, it will not cause or
2
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision pt: October 1 1998
permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the
airport, of the noise compatibility program measures upon which Federal funds have been expended.
22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make its airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and
without unjust discrimination, to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or to
engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the
airport.
b. In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or
privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or to
engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the
airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to -
(1) furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to all
users thereof, and
(2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or
service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and
nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to
volume purchasers.
C. Each fixed -based operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees,
rentals, and other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed -based
operators making the same or similar uses of such airport and utilizing the same or
similar facilities.
d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to use any
fixed -based operator that is authorized or permitted by the airport to serve any air
carrier at such airport.
e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, nontenant, or subtenant of
another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and
substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other
charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air
transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which make similar use of
such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as
tenants or nontenants and signatory carriers and nonsignatory carriers.
Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably withheld by
any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those
already imposed on air carriers in such classification or status.
f. It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any
person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport; from performing any
services on its own aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to
maintenance, repair, and fuelmg) that it may choose to perform.
g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges referred to in
this assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditions as
would apply to the furnishing of such services by commercial aeronautical service
providers authorized by the sponsor under these provisions.
h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory,
conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and
efficient operation of the airport.
L The sponsor may prohibit or knrit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of
the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or
necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.
23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or
intending to provide, aeronautical services to the.public. for purposes of this paragraph, the providing of
the services at an airport by a single fixed -based operator shall not be construed as an exclusive right if
both of the following apply:
a. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed -
based operator to provide such services, and
0
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision N1: October 11998
b. If allowing more than one fixed -based operator to provide such services would require the
reduction of space leased pursuant to an existing agreement between such single fixed -
based operator and such airport.
It further agrees that it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or
corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities, including, but not
limited to charter flights, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting,
aerial advertising and surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft sales and services, sale of aviation
petroleum products whether or not conducted in conjunction with other aeronautical activity, repair and
maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, and any other activities which because of their direct
relationship to the operation of aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity, and that it will
terminate any exclusive right to conduct an aeronautical activity now existing at such an airport before
the grant of any assistance under Title 49, United States Code.
24. Fee and Rental Structure. It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the
airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the
particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection. No
part of the Federal share of an airport development, airport planning or noise compatibility project for
which a grant is made under Title 49, United States Code, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982, the Federal Airport Act or the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 shall be included in the
rate basis in establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of that airport.
25. Airport Revenues.
a. All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after
December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the
airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by
the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the
actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or
off the airport. Provided, however, that if covenants or assurances in debt obligations
issued before September 3, 1982, by the owner or operator of the airport, or provisions
enacted before September 3, 1982, in governing statutes controlling the owner or
operator's financing, provide for the use of the revenues from any of the airport owner or
operator's facilities, including the airport, to support not only the airport but also the
airport owner or operator's general debt obligations or other facilities, then this limitation
on the use of all revenues generated by the airport (and, in the case of a public airport,
local taxes on aviation fuel) shag not apply.
b. As part of the annual audit required under the Single Audit Act of 1984, the sponsor will
direct that the audit will review, and the resulting audit report will provide an opinion
conceming, the use of airport revenue and taxes in paragraph (a), and indicating whether
funds paid or transferred to the owner or operator are paid or transferred in a manner
consistent with Title 49, United States Code and any. other applicable provision of law,
including any regulation promulgated by the Secretary or Administrator.
c. Any civil penalties or other sanctions will be imposed for violation of this assurance in
accordance with the provisions of Section 47107 of Title 49, United States Code.
26. Reports and Inspections. It will:
a. submit to the Secretary such annual or special financial and operations reports as the
Secretary may reasonably request and make such reports available to the public; make
available to the public at reasonable tames and places a report of the airport budget in a
format prescribed by the Secretary;
b. for airport development projects, make the airport and all airport records and documents
affecting the airport, including deeds, leases, operation and use agreements, regulations
and other instruments, available for inspection by any duly authorized agent of the
Secretary upon reasonable request;
c. for noise compatibility program projects, make records and documents relating to the
project and continued compliance with the terms, conditions, and assurances of the grant
agreement including deeds, leases, agreements, regulations, and other instruments,
10
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision +f1: October 1 1998
available for inspection by any duly authorized agent of the Secretary upon reasonable
request; and
d. in a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, provide to the Secretary arld make
available to the public following each of its fiscal years, an annual report listing in detail:
(i) all amounts paid by the airport to any other unit of government and the purposes
for which each such payment was made; and
(ii) all services and property provided by the airport to other units of government and
the amount of compensation received for provision of each such service and
property.
27. Use by Government Aircraft. It will make available all of the facilities of the airport developed with
Federal financial assistance and all those usable for landing and takeoff of aircraft to the United States
for use by Government aircraft in common with other aircraft at all times without charge, except, if the
use by Government aircraft is substantial, charge may be made for a reasonable share, proportional to
such use, for the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities used. Unless otherwise determined by
the Secretary, or otherwise agreed to by the sponsor and the using agency, substantial use of an airport
by Government aircraft will be considered to exist when operations of such aircraft are in excess of those
which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere with use of the landing areas by other
authorized aircraft, or during any calendar month that -
a. Five (5) or more Government aircraft are regularly based at the airport or on land
adjacent thereto; or
b. The total number of movements (counting each landing as a movement) of
Government aircraft is 300 or more, or the gross accumulative weight of
Government aircraft using the airport (the total movement of Government aircraft
multiplied by gross weights of such aircraft) is in excess of five million pounds.
28. Land for Federal Facilities. It will furnish without cost to the Federal Government for use in connection
with any air traffic control or air navigation activities, or weather -reporting and communication activities
related to air traffic control, any areas of land or water, or estate therein, or rights in buildings of the
sponsor as the Secretary considers necessary or desirable for construction, operation, and maintenance at
Federal expense of space or facilities for such purposes. Such areas or any portion thereof will be made
available as provided herein within four months after receipt of a written request from the Secretary.
29. Airport Layout Plan.
a. It will keep up to date at all times an airport layout plan of the airport showing (1)
boundaries of the airport and all proposed additions thereto, together with the
boundaries of all offsite areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport
purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the location and nature of all existing
and proposed airport facilities and structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons,
terminal buildings, hangars and roads), including all proposed extensions and
reductions of existing airport facilities; and 13) the location of all existing and
proposed nonaviation areas and of all existing improvements thereon. Such airport
layout plans and each amendment, revision, or modification -thereof, shall be subject
to the approval of the Secretary which approval shall be evidenced by the signature
of a duly authorized representative of the Secretary on the face of the airport layout
plan. The sponsor will not make or permit any changes or alterations in the airport
or any of its facilities which are not in conformity with the airport layout plan as
approved by the Secretary and which might, in the opinion of the Secretary,
adversely affect the safety, utility or efficiency of the airport.
b. If a change or alteration in the airport or the facilities is made which the Secretary
determines adversely affects the safety, utility, or efficiency of any federally owned,
leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is not in conformity with
the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary, the owner or operator will, if
requested, by the Secretary (1) eliminate such adverse effect in a manner approved
by the Secretary; or (2) bear all costs of relocating such property for replacement
thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all costs of restoring such property
11
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 1 1998
(or replacement thereof) to the level of safety, utility, efficiency, and cost of
operation existing before the unapproved change in the airport or its facilities.
30. Civil Rights. It will comply with such rules as are promulgated to assure that no person shall, on the
grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or handicap be excluded from participating in any
activity conducted with or benefiting from funds received from this grant. This assurance obligates the
sponsor for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where
Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of personal property or real property or interest
therein or structures or improvements thereon in which case the assurance obligates the sponsor or any
transferee for the longer of the following periods: (a) the period during which the property is used for a
purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision
of similar services or benefits, or (b) the period during which the sponsor retains ownership or possession
of the property.
31. Disposal of Land.
a. For land purchased under a grant for airport noise compatibility purposes, it will
dispose of the land, when the land is no longer needed for such purposes, at fair
market value, at the earliest practicable time. That portion of the proceeds of such
disposition which is proportionate to the United States' share of acquisition of such
land will, at the discretion of the Secretary, 1) be paid to the Secretary for deposit in
the Trust Fund, or 2) be reinvested in an approved noise compatibility project as
prescribed by the Secretary.
b. (1) For land purchased under a grant for airport development purposes (other than
noise compatibility), it will, when the land is no longer needed for airport purposes,
dispose of such land at fair market value or make available to the Secretary an
amount equal to the United States' proportionate share of the fair market value of
the land. That portion of the proceeds of such disposition which is proportionate to
the United States' share of the cost of acquisition of such land will, (a) upon
application to the Secretary, be reinvested in another eligible airport improvement
project or projects approved by the Secretary at that airport or within the national
airport system, or (b) be paid to the Secretary for deposit in the Trust Fund if no
eligible project exists.
(2) Land shall be considered to be needed for airport purposes under this assurance if
(a) it may be needed for aeronautical purposes (including runway protection zones) or
serve as noise buffer land, and N the revenue from interim uses of such land
contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport. Further, land purchased
with a grant received by an airport operator or owner before December 31, 1987,
will be considered to be needed for airport purposes if the Secretary or Federal
agency making such grant before December 31, 1987, was notified by the operator
or owner of the uses of such land, did not object to such use, and the land continues
to be used for that purpose, such use having commenced no later than December 15,
1989.
C. Disposition of such land under (a) or (b) will be subject to the retention or reservation
of any interest or right therein necessary to ensure that such land will only be used
for purposes which are compatible with noise levels associated with operation of the
airport.
32. Engineering and Design Services. It will award each contract, or sub -contract for program
management, construction management, planning studies, feasibility studies, architectural services,
preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping or related services with respect to the
project in the some manner as a contract for architectural and engineering services is negotiated under
Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 or an equivalent qualifications -
based requirement prescribed for or by the sponsor of the airport.
33. Foreign Market Restrictions. It will not allow funds provided under this grant to be used to fund any
project which uses any product or service of a foreign country during the period in which such foreign
country is fisted by the United States Trade Representative as denying fair and equitable market
opportunities for products and suppliers of the United States in procurement and construction.
12
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision q1: October 1 1998
34. Policies, Standards, and Specifications. It will carry out the project in accordance with policies,
standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars
listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars for AIP projects, dated 511195 and included in this grant, and
in accordance with applicable state policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary.
35. Relocation and Real Property Acquisition. 11) It will be guided in acquiring real property, to the
greatest extent practicable under State law, by the land acquisition policies in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part
24 and will pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in Subpart B. (2) It will
provide a relocation assistance program offering the services described in Subpart C and fair and
reasonable relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons as required in Subpart D and E of 49
CFR Part 24. (3) It will make available within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement,
comparable replacement dwellings to displaced persons in accordance with Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 24.
36. Access By Intercity Buses. The airport owner or operator will permit, to the maximum extent
practicable, intercity buses or other modes of transportation to have access to the airport, however, it
has no obligation to fund special facilities for intercity buses or for other modes of transportation.
13
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision aft: October 1 1998
CURRENT FAA ADVISORY CIRCULARS FOR AIP PROJECTS
Updated on: 5/1195
NUMBER
SUBJECT
7017460-1 H
Obstruction Marking and Lighting
CHG 1 &2
15015000.13
Announcement of Availibility--RTCA Inc., Document RTCA-221, Guidance and
Recommended Requirements for Airport Surface Movement Sensors
15015100.140
Architectural, Engineering, and Planning Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects
15015210-5B
Painting, Marking and Lighting of Vehicles Used on an Airport
15015210-713
Aircraft Fire and Rescue Communications
15015210-14
Airport Fire and Rescue Personnel Protective Clothing
15015210-15
Airport Rescue & Firefighting Station Building Design
15015210-18
Systems for Interactive Training of Airport Personnel
15015220.46
Water Supply Systems for Aircraft Fire and Rescue Protection
15015220.1 OA
Guide Specification for WaterlFoam Type Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles
15015220-13B
Runway Surface Condition Sensor Specification Guide
15015220.14A
Airport Fire and Rescue Vehicle Specification Guide
15015220.16A
Automated Weather Observing Systems for NonFederal Applications
15015220-17A
Design Standards for Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Training Facilities
15015220-18
Buildings for Storage and Maintenance of Airport Snow and Ice Control Equipment and
Materials
15015220-19
Guide Specification for Small, Dual -Agent Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles
15015220-20
Airport Snow and Ice Control Equipment
CHG 1
15015220.21
Guide Specification for Lifts Used to Board Airline Passengers With Mobility
CHG1
Impairments
15015300-13
Airport Design
CHG 1, 2,3&4
15015300.14
Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities
14
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 1 1998
15015300.15 Use of Value Engineering for Engineering Design of Airport Grant Projects
15015320.513 Airport Drainage
15015320.8C Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
CHG 1 &2
15015320.12B
Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid Resistant Airport Pavement
Surfaces
15015320-14
Airport Landscaping for Noise Control Purposes
15015325.4A
Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design
CHG 1
15015340-1G
Standards for Airport Markings
15015340-4C
Installation Details for Runway Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems
CHG 1 &2
15015340.513 Segmented Circle Airport Marker System
CHG 1
15015340.148 Economy Approach Lighting Aids
CHG 1 &2
15015340-17B Standby Power for NonFAA Airport Lighting Systems
15015340.18C Standards for Airport Sign Systems
CHG 1
15015340.19 Taxiway Centerline Lighting System
15015340.21 Airport Miscellaneous Lighting Visual Aids
15015340.238 Supplemental Wind Cones
15015340-24 Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System
CHG 1
15015340-27A Air -to -Ground Radio Control of Airport Lighting Systems
15015345.31) Specification for L821 Panels for Remote Control of Airport Lighting
15015345-5A Circuit Selector Switch
15015345.70 Specification for L824 Underground Electrical Cable for Airport Lighting Circuits
CHG 1
15015345.10E Specification for Constant Current Regulators Regulator Monitors
15015345.12C Specification for Airport and Heliport Beacon
15015345.13A Specification for L841 Auxiliary Relay Cabinet Assembly for Pilot Control of Airport
15
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #11: October 1 1998
Lighting Circuits
15015345-26B Specification for L823 Plug and Receptacle, Cable Connectors
CHG 1 &2
15015345-27C Specification for Wind Cone Assemblies
15015345.28D Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAP[) Systems
CHG 1
15015345-39B FAA Specification L853, Runway and Taxiway Centerline Retroreflective Markers
CHG 1
15015345-42C Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transformer Housings, Junction Boxes and
CHG 1 Accessories
150/5345.43D
Specification for Obstruction Lighting Equipment
15015345-44F
Specification for Taxiway and Runway Signs
15015345-45A
Lightweight Approach Light Structure
150/5345.46A
Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures
15015345.47A
Isolation Transformers for Airport Lighting Systems
15015345.49A
Specification 1.854, Radio Control Equipment
15015345.50
Specification for Portable Runway Lights
CHG 1
15015345-51
Specification for Discharge -Type Flasher Equipment
CHG 1
15015345-52
Generic Visual Glideslope Indicators (GVGI)
15015345-53
Airport Lighting Equipment Cerification Program
15015360.9
Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities at NonHub Locations
15015360-12A
Airport Signing & Graphics
15015360-13
Planning and Design Guidance for Airport Terminal Facilities
CHG 1
15015370.2C
Operational Safety on Airports During Construction
15015370.66
Construction Progress and Inspection Report -Airport Grant Program
15015370.IOA
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
CHG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,8
15015370.11
Use of Nondestructive Testing Devices in the Evaluation of Airport Pavements
CHG 1
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision Jit: October 1 1998
15015370-12
Quality Control of Construction for Airport Grant Projects
15015390.2A
Heliport Design
15015390-3
Vertiport Design
17
MASTER AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTING AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
Revision #1: October 1 1998
ACCEPTANCE
The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements
contained in this Master Agreement as part of all Grant Agreements between the Sponsor and the Federal Aviation
Administration as provided by Title 49 U.S.C. which are executed subsequent to the date of acceptance of this Master
Agreement.
Date: October 28, 1998
Name: ��
Title: Supervisor. Town of Southold
Sponsor: Town of Southhold, New York
Airport: Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island, New York
�h IC[LfiOl �J
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ALBANY, N.Y. 12232
JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN GEORGE E. PATAKI
ACTING COMMISSIONER GOVERNOR
RECEIVED
MAR 2 4 1997
March 18, 1997 SoWwAd Town Cleric
Airport Sponsors and Consultants:
Our recent letter describing changes to the aviation grant program had as an attachment a new
reimbursement request form to be used for requesting payment under the streamlined grant
process. The form as submitted had omissions to the sponsor certification statement. We are
attaching a revised form and ask that you discard the form sent previously.
Sincerely,
Douglas . Fox, P.E.
Statewide Aviation Section
Attachment
FIN 1941
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AVIATION SERVICES BUREAU
GRANTAGREEMENT
State Number
Federal Number
Max State Amount
Max Federal Amount
In accordance wth the provisions of the Grant Agreement: the Airport Sponsor applies for payment as follows;
DESCRIPTION
Certificate Number
B
FEDERAL
SHARE
J
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
E
CURRENT
PROJECT
COSTS (C -D)
COST OF WORK PERFORMED TO
EQUIPMENT
(Date)
(Date)
1. Total Expended
$0.00
2. Less non -participating
0
3. Eligible Cost
0
4. Less Federal Share
$0.66-
5. Project Cost
$0.00
6. State Share Q 50%
SOAR
7. Total Prior Requests
$0.00
8. Amount Requested
0
DESCRIPTION
A
ELIGIBLE
COST
INCURRED
B
FEDERAL
SHARE
C
PROJECT
COST
(A -B)
D
PRIOR
PROJECT
COSTS
E
CURRENT
PROJECT
COSTS (C -D)
F
STATE FUNDS
REQUESTED
(50%of
EQUIPMENT
LAND
CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING
ADMINISTRATION
TOTALS
As the sponsors Auttiorbed Rapresarhtlw. I haroby eMly Mat the above I dorrraaon Is true and that the kndrg requested is for a prolect approved by the New York State Department of Transportation. The project for sdich
Mdrp is being ragwated satlsAas at raquYenwds and the tams and conditions of Ow *baa fated Sate Grant ApreernnR. Additionally, I earthy that according to my WwwWpa and b9W, all tams and amounts shown on
this application for payment aro correct, all work has been performed andfor all materials supplied, and federal reimbursement has been received (Sea NtaeMnent).
NEW YORK STATE USE
Approved Amount $
Dear Airport Sponsor:
• On November 1, 1996, the Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final
rule in the Federal Register amending 49 CFR Part 27, its regulation
implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).
We have enclosed the Federal Register, Vol. 1, No. 213, pp. 56409 through
56425 and a summary sheet of the significant changes. The amended
regulation was effective December 2, 1996.
Please note that as amended, the rule requires two actions on the part of a
commercial service airport, which is defined as a commercial service
airport for purposes of the Airport Improvement Program and that enplanes
annually 2500 or more passengers and receives schedule passenger
service of aircraft.
a. Section 504 required airport sponsors to submit a transition plan to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) detailing the results of a review of the
airport facility's accessibility for individuals with disabilities. That plan was to be
submitted to FAA in 1980. The amended rule stipulates that. airports which did
not comply with this requirement, must now submit a transition plan to FAA by
March 3.
This transition plan must review the airport facilities against the standards of the
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibilities Guidelines (ADAAG) found at
Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 37 or Appendix A to 28 CFR Part 36. We have no
record on file that indicates that you submitted a transition plan to either this
office or any other office within the FAA. Therefore, by March 3, please provide
to us a copy of one of the following:
• Verification that the airport conducted and implemented a transition plan in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 27. Verification could include a copy of the
original transition plan or a description of the changes that were made to
ensure accessibility for disabled individuals and the approximate dates: that
the changes were made.
• Verification that the airport conducted and implemented a transition plan in
accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations 28 CFR Part 35
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. 28 CFR
Section 35.150(d) required public airports that did not develop transition plans
in accordance with 49 CFR Part 27 to develop plans by July 26, 1992.
• A current transition plan and implementation schedule in accordance with
49 CFR Section 27.71(g). This section of the regulation refers to 49 CFR
Section 27.65(d), which is no longer in the published regulation. Airport
sponsors should use the criteria for developing a transition plan in
accordance with 28 CFR Part 35. Given that all airport sponsors should
already have completed and implemented a transition plan under either
Section 504 or the ADA, the implementation schedule for achieving
compliance should be as expeditious as possible.
b. By September 2, airports must enter into written agreements with each
air carrier serving the airport allocating responsibility for meeting the boarding
assistance requirements of the amended regulation. These agreements shall
include specific timeframes for providing the necessary boarding assistance
devices and shall ensure that all lifts and other equipment are maintained in
properworking condition. The airport is responsible for training airport personnel
on the use of this equipment and appropriate boarding assistance procedures in
the event they are involved in providing the assistance. While airports are not
required to submit these agreements to FAA, we request that you notify us when
the agreements have been negotiated and signed.
In a separate matter, unrelated to these regulatory changes, the National Council
on Disability recently issued a report which includes "Recommendations for the
Department of Transportation." It outlines areas which may need additional
attention based on studies that it conducted in the public and private sectors.
One of the recommendations, the provision of accessible public phones for both
voice and TTY, specifically relates to airports. The Council's recommendation is
that airports ensure "accessible public phones (voice and TTY) that accept all
forms of payment (including coins) in every phone bank within each concourse at
airports ... and that connect with other phone systems, including providing access
to 411, relay services and emergency numbers."
49 CFR Section 27.71(a)(vi) requires that "wherever there are public telephone
centers in terminals, at least one clearly marked telephone shall be equipped
with a volume of control or sound booster device and with a device available to
handicapped persons that makes telephone communication possible for persons
wearing hearing aids." 49 CFR Section 27.71(a)(vii) requires "Each airport shall
ensure that there is sufficient teletypewriter (TTY) service to permit hearing
impaired persons to communicate readily with airline ticket agents and other
personnel."
49 CFR Section 27.19 requires sponsors to comply with the applicable
regulations implementing the ADA. The DOJ regulation implementing Title II of
the ADA includes the following provisions concerning TTY's.
• A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services
where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal
opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service,
program, or activity conducted by a public entity (28 CFR Section
2
3..
35.160) The definition of auxiliary aids includes TDD's (28 CFR Section 35.104).
• Where a public entity communicates by telephone with applicants and
beneficiaries, TDD's or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be
used to communicate with individuals with impaired hearing or speech (28
CFR Section 35.161).
• Telephone emergency services, including 911 services, shall provide direct
access to individuals who use TDD's and computer modems (28 CFR Section
35.162).
Finally, enclosed is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
November 1 Federal Register, which would amend the DOT's Air Carrier Access
Act regulations at 14 CFR Part 382 (61 F.R. 56481). The notice concerns seat
assignments, storage of collapsible wheelchairs, provisions for passengers with
hearing impairments, and accessible smoke-free paths through airports for
persons with severe respiratory disabilities. Comments were requested by
January 30, but late -filed comments will be considered to the extend practicable.
The address for comments is included in the NPRM.
If you have questions concerning any of the information provided in this letter or
the enclosures, please call me at (718) 553-3299 or (718) 553-3295.
Sincerely,
Murray M. Gottlieb
Manager, Airports External DBE
Compliance Programs
Enclosures
Changes to the Department of Transportation's Section 504
Regulations at 49 CFR Part 27
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504), prohibits
recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating against persons with
handicapping conditions. On November 1, 1996, the Department of Transportation
(DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register amending 49 CFR Part 27, its
Section 504 regulation (61 F.R. 56409). The changes were effective December 2,
1996. A summary and brief discussion of the major changes follow. This summary
is a general overview; it does not substitute for a thorough review of the amended
regulation, including the Supplementary Information preceding it.
1. "Handical" v. "Disability"
49 CFR Part 27 is now consistent with the language of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Wherever the word "handicap" appears, including in the title
of the rule, it is revised to read "disability".
2. 49 CFR Section 27.5. Definitions
The definition of "Air Carrier Airport" has been removed. In its place is a definition
for "Commercial Service Airport," an airport that enplanes annually 2500 or more
passengers and receives scheduled passenger service of aircraft. Changes to
49 CFR Section 27.71 are applicable to commercial service airports.
3. 49 CFR 27.71. Airport Facilities
Section 27.71(a) clarifies that the section applies to terminal facilities, including
parking and ground transportation facilities, owned, leased or operated by
commercial service airports.
49 CFR Section 27.71(b) clarifies that airport operators will be in compliance with
the Section 504 obligation to have terminal facilities and services readily accessible
to and usable by individual with disabilities if they meet the requirements of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations implementing Title II of the ADA at
28 CFR Part 35.
Under 49 CFR Section 27.71(c), airports must ensure that there is an accessible
path between the gate and the area from which aircraft are boarded. For example,
if stairs must be negotiated from the gate to the aircraft boarding area, it is the
airport operator's responsibility to ensure that a disabled passenger can move
through the airport to the means of boarding the aircraft.
49 CFR Section 27.71(d) clarifies that inter -terminal transportation systems,
including shuttle vehicles and people movers, must comply with DOT's ADA rules at
49 CFR Parts 37 and 38.
J.
49 CFR Section 27.71(e) provides that the accessibility standard to be used for
airport facilities is the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAGs), including section 10.4 which specifically concerns airport facilities.° The
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) is no longer an optional standard for
commercial service airports. The FAA interprets this change to be applied in the
following manner.
• Construction begun before January 26, 1992, that is in compliance with UFAS
does not need to be modified to comply with the ADAAG.
• Construction begun before January 26, 1992, that is not in compliance with
either UFAS or the ADAAG, must now comply with the ADAAG.
• All design and construction begun after December 2, 1996, must comply with the
ADAAG.
49 CFR Section 27.71(f) clarifies that leases or contracts between airport operators
and air carriers concerning the use of airport facilities shall define the respective
responsibilities for providing accessible facilities and services to individuals with
disabilities. This provision requires that the overlapping obligations under the ADA
and the ACAA be spelled out in these contracts.
49 CFR Section 27.71(g) requires airport operators who have not previously
complied with the requirements of 49 CFR Section 27.65(d), must submit a
transition plan to FAA no later than March 3, 1997. 49 CFR Section 27.65(d) was
deleted in a previous amendment to the regulation. Therefore, airport sponsors
shall use the transition plan criteria included in 28 CFR Section 35.150(d).
4. 49 Section CFR 27.72 Boarding assistance for small aircraft.
This is a new section which clarifies existing 49 CFR Section 27.71(b)(4) requiring
airports to "assure that adequate assistance is provided incident to enplaning and
deplaning disabled passengers." Air carriers under the ACAA have similar
obligations. 49 CFR 27.72 requires airports with 10,000 or more annual
enplanements to sign a written agreement with each carrier serving the airport by
September 2, to provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities using
mechanical lifts, ramps, or other devices that do not require employees to lift or
carry passengers up stairs for aircraft that have a 19-30 seat capacity. The
agreement does not need to include larger aircraft, because existing provisions of
14 CFR 382.39(a)(1)-(3) remain in affect without change (see Final Rule
Supplementary Information, p. 56414). The agreement does not need to be
submitted to DOT, but it must be made available upon request.
Depending upon the airport's enplanement activity, the agreement must provide that
all actions necessary to ensure accessible boarding for passengers are completed
by the following dates. The airports and the air carriers are jointly responsible for
meeting these dates (49 CFR Section 27.72(c)(2)).
Airport Category.
Large/medium hubs
Small hubs
Non -hub primaries
Enplanements ..,
.1,200,000 or more
250,000 to 1,199,999
10,000 to 249,999
Aareement Date -
December 2, 1998
December 2, 1999
December 4, 2000
The agreement must also ensure that all lifts and other accessibility equipment are
maintained in proper working order (49 CFR Section 27.72(c)(5)). In addition, if
airport personnel are involved in providing boarding assistance, the airport must
provide training in the use of the equipment and appropriate boarding assistance
procedures (49 CFR Section 27.72(d)).
Boarding assistance by lifts, ramps, or other devices is not required under the
following circumstances (49 CFR Section 27.72(c)(3)):
• Aircraft with a capacity of fewer than 19 or more than 30 seats;
• Float planes;
• The following 19 -seat capacity aircraft models:
Fairchild Metro
Jetstream 31
Beech 1900 (C and D models)
Any other 19 -seat model determined by DOT
Finally, when boarding assistance by lifts, ramps or other devices cannot be
provided for reasons beyond the control of the parties to the agreement, boarding
assistance shall be provided by any available means to which the passenger
consents, except hand carrying which is not allowed (49 CFR Section 27.72(c)(4)).
5. 49 CFR Section 27.77 Recipients of Essential Air Service Subsidies
This is a new section that clarifies that air carriers receiving assistance under the
Essential Air Service program are considered recipients of Federal financial
assistance and must comply with the applicable requirements of the Department's
Section 504 and ACAA regulations.
3
Achieving Independence:
The Challenge for the 21st Century
A Decade of Progress in Disability Policy
Setting an Agenda for the Future
RECOMNMNDATION S FOR 'I' .
DERARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
r -
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
July 26, 1996
From the Section on Transportation
Recommendations
While the accessibility of public transportation has increased considerably in the
last decade, numerous barriers remain. People with disabilities are far from being able
to assume that the transportation they need will be accessible to and usable by them.
Too often lifts on buses do not work or drivers will not operate lifts or call stops for
people with visual impairments. Safetv restraints for new -model wheelchairs are. lacking
and contrasts on steps for people with low vision are inadequate. People with hearing
disabilities are frustrated by lack of communication access. Many people with disabilities
do not live in areas served by public transportation and thus rely on private vehicles.
Because of the additional expense of adapting a vehicle and the general low level of
income of people with disabilities, buying a car may be difficult. Yet without a car, they
are unable to get to a job or otherwise participate in community activities.
People with disabilities continue to confront discrimination on airlines. Lack of
awareness of airline staff often contributes to problems. Sometimes people with
disabilities are unaware of their rights in relation to airline travel and complain that
DOT does little to enforce the Air Carriers Access Act
General Public Transit Improvements
1. Federal, state and local governments should provide additional funding for public
transit systems.
The level of access to public transportation for people with disabilites is directly
related to the quality and expansiveness of the public transit system in general. Thus,
the first step in enhancing access is improving public transit systems generally.
Additional funding from the Federal Government should include both operating and
capital funds, including flexible capital, in order to expand public transit in urban,
suburban and rural areas, as well as tribal lands.
Enforcement of Current Law
Z. DOT and relevant state and local government entities should aggressively enforce
existing transportation statutes and regulations related tq people with disabilities, by
undertaking the following:
a) prompt referral of violators for appropriate action;
b) systematic solicitation and utilization of input from the disability comm'
unity
when making decisions regarding funding, enforcement, paratransit planning and
time extensions;
c) ongoing meaningful public participation by people with disabilities in all
projects and decisions of local transit agencies;
d) improving fixed -route service through full compliance with ADA requirements
such as calling out stops, providing te=. aI/Msual (print or electronic) access for
people with hearing disabilities, not moving the bus until the person is seated,
picking up all disabled people rather than passing them by, clearing priority
9_
seating when needed by someone with a disability, curbing the bus so people can
get on, improving drivers' attitudes and disciplining drivers who do not comply;
e) improved coordination by relevant entities to make bus stops more accessible,
including removal of both permanent barriers and temporary barriers such as
snow drifts;
fj ensuring compliance with A.D.A. requirements (including eligibility and service.
area requirements), even if politically difficult, so that paratransit is available to
those users with disabilities who will never be able to use fixed -route services;
g) ensuring that fixed -route information is provided in paratransit pians so these
plans will constitute full ADA pians.
Rural Transportation
3. The Congress and the Federal Government should fund more accessible rural transit
services for the general public and for people with disabilities, including intercity rail
services.
Coordination
4. DOT, in conjunction with other relevant federal agencies such as the Department of
Health and Human Services, should develop a mechanism and a process to facilitate
coordination of transportation resources at the federal, state and local levels.
Many human services agencies buy vans to transport clients, including those with
disabilities, to and from services. 'hese agencies rarely coordinate with transportation
entities that provide related transportation services, such as paratransit. Human services
vans sometimes sit idly for extended periods of time, while people with. disabilities in the
same community have difficulty accessing public transportation. In addition, Section 9
and Section 18 transportation providers --generally urban and rural providers—are
prohibited from picking up residents outside their designated areas, even though they
may drive directly through adjacent areas while transporting someone. Coordination
efforts should seek to eliminate inefficiencies such as these in current transportation
systems by promoting initiatives such as agreements between urban and rural providers
to pick up passengers in each other's areas when logical to do so.
In addition, there are many people residing in "gray areas," or areas served by
neither urban nor rural transit. These are most often communities in urbanized areas
that have not signed on with the regional transit system. However, the regional
transportation provider's funding allocation includes the population residing in the
unserved areas. Coordination should ensure that these people are served by some public
transit system.
Communications Accessibility
5. DOT and DOJ should enhance enforcement of A.DA and the Air Carriers Access :pct
and develop additional initiatives to ensure communications accessibility in
transportation facilities, services and vehicles, as well as on streets and highways,
including
a) improved signage for people with visual impairments:
b) calling out bus stops for people with visual impairments;
c) identifying which bus is on which route for people with visual impairments;
d) ensuring the provision of way -finding information in transit stations, such as
detectable warnings;
e) ensuring the provision of visual (text) public announcement/paging systems
that provide information on changes in times of departures or gates, seating
upgrades, and weather or mechanical problems, and that call out bus or train
stops;
f) ensuring captioning of TVMdeo programming in areas such as airplanes,
cruise ships and terminal waiting areas;
g) ensuring accessible public phones (voice and TTY) that accept all forms of
payment (including coins) in every phone bank within each concourse at airports,
at highway stops, ow. street corners, and on airplanes and trains, and that connect
with other phone systems, including providing access to 411, relay services and
emergency numbers;
h) ensuring accessible courtesy/emergency phones (voice and TTY) for vans,
hotels, car rentals, in -transit facilities, satellite parking, call boxes, etc;
i) ensuring flashing and audible emergency alarms in facilities and vehicles;
j) ensuring that radio -based advisories have equivalent text -form communication;
k) providing for research into color contrast needs of people with visual
impairments.
Training
6. DOT should require and fund training of transit agencies, people who provide transit
services and people with disabilities about laws and practices affecting accessible transit.
Training for service providers should include disability awareness and should be
standardized across the country but also tailored to the unique needs of the community.
People with disabilities, including those with mobility, vision and hearing disabilities,
should be involved in the design and delivery of the training. Training for people with
disabilities should include training in their rights under the law, empowerment strategies
to assist them in exercising their full rights, and orientation on how to use public
transportation and malting the most appropriate u$e of the modes of transit that are
available to them.
Paratransit
7. DOT should enforce the paratransit provisions of ADA, and Iocal transit agencies
should ensure that
a) eligibility for paratransit is uniform across all states and cities, including
reciprocity from one locale to another;
b) eligibility is determined by a functional model, not a medical model:
c) trip -by -trip eligibility determination on the basis of comparable accessible
public transit is an aspect of the process.
Motor Vehicle and Transit Design
S. The Society of Automotive Engineers and relevant federal agencies should
incorporate accessibility features in safety and design standards and ensure compliance
with ADA and Section -404 of the Rehabilitation Act for
a) automobiles, in order to promote usability by people with disabilities;
b) advanced car designs, such as electric cars, in order to provide audible and
visual safety cues; _
c)_new "intelligent transportation systems" currently under development
Hizhways and Streets
9. The Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate state and local agencies
should ensure that highway call boxes are accessible and that traffic signals and poles
show flashing lights when emergency vehicles are approaching.
Air Travel
10. DOT should improve access to air travel, particularly accessibility on airplanes,
and, toward this end, should conduct research on ways to improve wheelchair storage,
loading and service.
4
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
[Federal Register: November 1, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 213)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56409-56425]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:frOlno96-6]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 382
49 CFR Part 27
[Docket 46872 and 45657 --Amendment #6]
RIN 2105-AB62
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and
Activities Receiving or Benefiting From Federal Financial Assistance;
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Air Travel
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department is amending its rules implementing section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Air Carrier Access Act of
1986 concerning the provision of equipment to facilitate the boarding
by individuals with disabilities on small commuter aircraft. The rule
requires air carriers and airports to work jointly to make lifts or
other boarding devices available. The rule also harmonizes requirements
relating to airport facilities in the Department's section 504 and Air
Carrier Access Act regulations and clarifies provisions concerning
communicable diseases.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10424, Washington, D.C.,
20590. (202) 366-9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687 (TDD); or Nancy Ebersole,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, same
street address, Room 9217, (202) 366-4864.
[[Page 56410]]
SgPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Boarding Assistance
Background
In the Department's regulation implementing section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which went into effect in 1979, the
Department requires Federally -assisted airports to play a role in
boarding assistance for individuals with disabilities:
Each operator at an airport receiving any Federal financial
assistance shall assure that adequate assistance is provided for
enplaning and deplaning handicapped persons. Boarding by level entry
boarding platforms and by passenger lounges are the preferred
1 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:23
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
methods for movement of handicapped persons between terminal
buildings and aircraft at air carrier airports; however, where this
is not practicable, operators at air carrier airport terminals shall
assure that there are lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices not
normally used for freight that are available for enplaning and
deplaning handicapped passengers. (49 CFR 27.71(a)(2)(v)).
This provision does not necessarily require that an airport acquire its
own lifts or other devices. Airports may comply if other parties at the
airport (e.g., air carriers) have devices that can be used for this
purpose.
Airlines' boarding assistance responsibilities are discussed in the
Department's Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulations. In 1990, when
the Department published its ACAA rule (14 CFR Part 382), the
Department knew that the rule did not address completely the issue of
boarding assistance for individuals with disabilities --particularly
those with mobility impairments --on some small commuter aircraft.
Section 382.49(a) requires carriers to provide boarding assistance,
including, "as needed, the services [of] personnel and the use of
ground wheelchairs, boarding wheelchairs, on -board wheelchairs . . .
and ramps or mechanical lifts.'' Where level entry boarding platforms
are not available, ''carriers shall use ramps, lifts, or other devices
(not normally used for freight) for enplaning and deplaning handicapped
individuals who need them'' (Sec. 382.39(a)(2)). However, the rule
provides a partial exception to the boarding assistance requirement:
In the event that the physical limitations of an aircraft with
less than 30 passenger seats preclude the use of existing models of
lifts, boarding chairs, or other feasible devices to enplane a
handicapped person, carrier personnel are not required to carry the
handicapped person onto the aircraft by hand. (Sec. 382.39(a)(4)).
The effect of this provision is that if there is no existing model of
lift, boarding chair, or other device that will work with a particular
aircraft having fewer than 30 seats, so that hand -carrying (i.e.,
having airline personnel physically pick up a passenger in their arms
and carry the passenger on board) is the only means by which the
passenger can board the aircraft, the carrier is not required to
provide boarding assistance. The rationale for not requiring hand -
carrying is sound: hand -carrying involves significant risks of injury
to both airline personnel and passengers, and it is an undignified way
of providing assistance. Moreover, in some models of aircraft, the
stairs that are built into the door of the aircraft are not strong
enough to accommodate two or three persons at a time, as either hand -
carrying or the use of a boarding chair would require. The result of
this exception, however, is that airlines may legally deny boarding to
persons with mobility impairments in some situations. (For discussion
of this provision and its background, see 55 FR 8033-8034; March 6,
1990.)
In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) issued at the
same time as the Department's Air Carrier Access Act rule (55 FR 8078;
March 6, 1990), the Department asked for additional information and
comment on the subject of lift devices for small commuter aircraft. In
the ANPRM, the Department noted that, in 1990, the development of lift
devices appeared not to have proceeded to the point where imposing
requirements for them through regulation would have been justified. We
received little information in response to this ANPRM. Subsequently,
the Department learned that a number of manufacturers had developed and
were attempting to market lift devices for small aircraft (at that time
for prices in the $8,000-$10,000 range), and that some airlines had
tested models of these lifts in a variety of operational conditions.
In June 1992, the Department held a workshop of parties interested
in this issue, including representatives of commuter airlines,
disability groups, and lift and aircraft manufacturers. The Department
heard presentations from lift manufacturers concerning their devices
2 of 31 02/28/9711:06:24
WAIS Document Retrieval http://fiwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
and from some air carriers that had tested various devices with their
aircraft. Department staff also conducted informal surveys of carriers
that tested the lifts to determine how well carrier personnel believed
the devices had worked with different types of commuter aircraft. From
this information, it appeared to the Department that there were
available several lift devices that can effectively facilitate boarding
assistance for persons with mobility impairments on most small commuter
aircraft in the 19-30 seat capacity range.
At the same time, none of the participants in the workshop appeared
to suggest that the existing lift devices were designed to work, or
could work, with some of the smallest aircraft (e.g., those under 19
passenger seats). Carriers also raised significant concerns about the
compatibility of the lift devices with certain existing aircraft models
in the 19-30 seat class. For example, while lifts could be extended to
the door of the Fairchild Metro and Beech 1900 models, there would be
less than a foot clearance between the lift and the propeller assembly,
creating a risk of costly damage (e.g., one estimate was $250,000) to
the aircraft, as well as the loss of passenger revenue for the two
months the aircraft might spend in the shop. Some carrier participants
also expressed concerns that, once a lift got a passenger to the
aircraft door, it would be difficult or impossible in some models
(e.g., the Jetstream, Metro and Beech 1900) to transfer the passenger
via a 12 -inch -wide boarding chair into the aisle and to a seat in the
aircraft (e.g., because of narrow and very limited maneuvering room in
some aircraft cabins).
One of the most important discussions at the workshop concerned the
allocation of responsibility for obtaining and operating lifts.
Generally, commuter carriers and airport operators each believed that
the other should bear the primary responsibility and cost for ensuring
accessibility to small commuter aircraft. For example, the Regional
Airline Association (RAA) representatives at the June 1992 workshop
asserted that their efforts to interest airports in sharing the cost of
lift devices had generated little response. Carriers cited what they
viewed as the greater financial resources of airports (e.g., airports
could apply for FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds or
passenger facility charge (PFC) revenues to help fund lifts); airports
cited the traditional control of carriers over passenger boarding. Both
were wary of potentially increased liability exposure from using lift
devices to board passengers with disabilities, and they urged FAA to
issue performance specifications for lifts. Disability group
representatives were concerned that, in the absence of regulatory
direction from the Department, there would be an impasse that would
postpone unreasonably passengers' ability to use small commuter
aircraft. Lift manufacturers were concerned that lengthy delays in
resolving issues in this area could
[[Page 56411]]
undermine the fragile, but developing, market for their products.
In February 1993, the FAA issued an advisory circular concerning
recommended specifications for such lifts. (FAA Advisory Circular 150/
5200XX-- " Guide Specification For Mobility Impaired Passenger Boarding
Devices''). Subsequently, we learned that many lift models had been
modified by their manufacturers to meet the FAA specifications.
The NPRM
In September 1993, the Department published an NPRM proposing that
airlines and airports, working together, would obtain lift equipment
needed to provide boarding assistance to small commuter aircraft. The
rationale for this proposal was that the Department views airports and
carriers as key parts of an inextricably intertwined air transportation
system. No one can fly between Point A and Point B without using at
least one carrier and at least two airports. To complete a trip, every
passenger must be able to travel to the first airport, move through the
3 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:24
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
first airport (including ticketing, baggage checking, and check-in,
where necessary), use the interface provided by some combination of the
airport and the carrier to enter the aircraft, get to his or her seat
on the aircraft, fly to the second airport, and reverse the process at
that end of the trip. What matters, from the passenger's point of view,
is not which participant in the system is responsible for each part of
the process, but that the entire process operates so that the passenger
can successfully complete the trip.
The air travel system would never work for anyone unless airports
and carriers worked together to get passengers from their place of
origin to their destination. This is as true for passengers with
disabilities as for anyone else. From the Department's point of view,
airports and carriers have the responsibility of working together to
ensure that passengers with disabilities can use commuter air service,
which has become an increasingly important part of the air
transportation system. Consequently, the Department proposed to amend
both its Air Carrier Access Act regulations (which apply to carriers)
and its section 504 regulations (which apply primarily to airports) to
establish the joint responsibility of both carriers and airports to
ensure that passengers with disabilities have the opportunity to use
commuter air service.
The NPRM proposed to create identical requirements in the ACAA and
section 504 rules, directing each Federal -aid commercial service
airport and each carrier serving that airport to establish a written
agreement that would provide for ensuring that lifts, ramps, or other
suitable devices would be provided and used to ensure that passengers
could enter and leave small commuter aircraft.
The written agreement between carriers and airports, which would
not have to be submitted to DOT but which would be kept on file for DOT
inspection, would have to be completed within nine months of the
effective date of the rule. The agreement would call for full
implementation of accessibility to small commuter aircraft at the
airport no later than three years from the effective date of the rule.
The proposed phase-in period was intended to permit an orderly
acquisition process for equipment and to avoid increasing costs through
a too -abrupt startup requirement. The NPRM also included a provision
allowing carriers to seek a waiver from the requirement to use a lift
or other device with a particular type of aircraft on the basis that
use of the device would present an unacceptable risk of significant
damage to the aircraft. The NPRM asked for comment on whether there
should be an exception or waiver provided from the boarding assistance
requirement when aircraft design limitations would prevent a passenger
with a disability from getting to a non -exit row seat after the
individual has entered the aircraft door.
Comments and DOT Responses
1. Responsibility for Obtaining Lifts
It was apparent from comments that airlines and airports continued
to disagree over who should be responsible for providing lift devices.
Four airports and an airport association said that airlines are
traditionally responsible for assisting passenger boarding and for
obtaining equipment used for this purpose. It is inappropriate to
involve the airport in this activity, since it is airlines that work
with aircraft manufacturers on design issues, one of these commenters
said. Another suggested that it would violate nondiscrimination
provisions of 14 CFR Part 152 for an airport to participate in
obtaining lifts that some, but not all, carriers might use. Another
remarked that even if airports participated in the funding of lifts,
airlines should be responsible for operations and maintenance.
Airports, carriers, and their associations commented that insufficient
airport improvement program (AIP) funding may be available for lifts,
especially at smaller airports, or that the priority assigned lifts for
such funding was too low.
Airline associations, on the other hand, said that since airports
4 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:24
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
could use AIP and passenger facility charge (PFC) funds for the purpose
of paying for lifts, airports should pay for them. This was also true,
they said, because the requirement for lifts was a matter of public
policy that should be paid for by the public. One airline association
and three other commenters suggested that DOT should subsidize lift
purchases (one suggesting that not to do so constituted an ''unfunded
mandate''), apparently beyond the level provided in the AIP program.
There was also considerable discussion in comments of how the
proposed joint responsibility between carriers and airports might work.
One disability group urged that the carrier -airport agreements have
sufficient specificity to define how lifts would be shared and used.
Carriers and their organizations said that carriers should control use
of the lifts, and recommended advance notice requirements of 24 or 48
hours to avoid conflicting demands for lift use.
An airport asked that there be a ''good faith'' exception to the
requirement to negotiate a joint agreement, so that if a party has
negotiated in good faith it would not be sanctioned for failing to come
to an agreement. Other commenters expressed doubts about the
negotiation process. An airport doubted that airlines would even show
up for the negotiation, while an airline association thought that
airports are in a superior bargaining position and do not want to use
AIP funds to benefit disabled passengers. A state agency asked how DOT
would enforce the requirement to negotiate an agreement, while a lift
manufacturer thought the regulation should include more detail on what
items should be in the agreement.
Two commenters suggested that the rules could be different for
different -sized airports (e.g., airports get lifts for small airports,
airlines at large airports, and a 50/50 split at medium airports). Some
airports, carriers, and their organizations suggested waiving the
requirement at small airports (e.g., at which there were less than a
threshold number of enplanements) or where there was an airport a
disabled passenger could use within 50 miles, since this is within
normal travel distance to airports for many passengers. Moreover, these
comments said, many smaller airports receive small amounts of AIP
funds, a fact that stretching out the compliance date would not change.
Airports and carriers were also concerned that since few lift
passengers would be expected at smaller airports, requiring lifts may
not be cost -
[[Page 56412]]
effective. A larger number of comments, however, mostly from disability
community commenters and lift manufacturers, opposed a small airport
waiver, saying that a more sensible approach to reduce burdens on small
airports would be to grant an extended compliance period for them,
provide higher AIP priority for this purpose, or allow the use of
boarding chairs at such places.
DOT Response
Who is responsible? Who pays? The Department does not believe that
there is a good conceptual or practical alternative to requiring, as
proposed in the NPRM, that carriers and airports share the
responsibility and cost for ensuring the accessibility of the commuter
air transportation system. As discussed above, the air travel system,
from the point of view of passengers with disabilities, is an
integrated whole in which airports, boarding systems, and aircraft must
all be accessible for travel to be possible. Carrier and airport
commenters each discussed, in some detail, why they shouldn't be
responsible and why the other party should. The intractable fact
remains that, absent contribution and cooperation from both parties,
accessibility will not happen. In the context of a nondiscrimination
statute, that result is unacceptable.
The Department points out that AIP and, in some cases, PFC funds
are options that can assist in the purchase of lifts. It is not
5 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:25
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
persuasive to assert that AIP funds are not available for this purpose
because of other, purportedly higher priority, demands on the funds.
Compliance with ACAA and 504 requirements --which means assuring that
passengers with disabilities can move through terminals and onto
aircraft --is no less important than carrying out other projects to
improve airport services and facilities for all passengers. When it
enacted the ACAA and 504, Congress implicitly determined that access
for passengers is just as high a priority as access for everyone else.
At the same time, given the intertwined nature of the air
transportation system, it is reasonable to expect carriers to make a
significant contribution to accessibility as well.
The Department is aware that airports and carriers disagree on a
considerable number of issues. However, ongoing working relationships
exist and will continue in the future. Airports and carriers must work
together and find ways of agreeing on a wide variety of matters for the
air transportation system to work. Consequently, the concept of
airports and carriers negotiating to determine how accessibility will
be provided is not something new and foreign. It is also far more
consistent with the Administration's regulatory policy of avoiding
dictating national, one -size -fits -all, solutions to issues that are
better decided locally by the parties concerned.
The requirement to negotiate an agreement, like other parts of
these rules, is enforced through existing mechanisms. For example, if
an airline failed to comply with its obligations, the enforcement
procedures of 14 CFR Sec. 382.65(c) and (d) would apply. If an airport
failed to comply, the procedures of 49 CFR Part 27, Subpart C, would
apply.
The Department has paid close attention to the costs of boarding
assistance requirements, which are described in the regulatory
evaluation placed in the docket for the rulemaking. In particular, we
would note that at least one lift model is available in the $15,000
range. In order to mitigate these costs, the Department is taking two
principal steps. First, those commercial service airports with 2500--
10,000 annual enplanements are exempt from the boarding assistance
requirement. These airports account for only about 1 percent of all
enplanements, so the exemption should not significantly damage the
accessibility of the air travel system to the vast majority of
passengers with disabilities. If boarding assistance equipment and
services exist at such an airport, however, they would have to be made
available to consenting passengers (except for hand -carrying, which is
not required to be used). This is not a requirement to provide such
equipment and services where they do not already exist; it is an ''if
you have it, use it'' requirement. Second, the Department will phase in
boarding assistance requirements depending on the size of the airport.
This point is discussed below under the "Time Frames'' heading.
It is important that boarding assistance equipment be maintained
properly, so that it is available for use by passengers who need it.
Consistent with provisions of existing ADA regulations, the rules will
require carriers and airports to maintain this equipment in proper
working order.
2. Aircraft -Related Issues
The NPRM recognized that lifts may not work well with all models of
commuter aircraft, and asked whether waivers or exceptions for specific
aircraft types that could be damaged by lifts was appropriate.
Disability community commenters and lift manufacturers generally
opposed this idea. A manufacturer said its product is compatible with
all aircraft in the 19-30 seat range and that any compatibility
problems could be worked out between the carrier and the manufacturer.
Another manufacturer said it made "adapters'' that would make its
lifts usable with various aircraft models that otherwise could be
damaged, such as the Fairchild Metro and Jetstream 31. (DOT staff
contacted the manufacturer, learning that it had a design for the
adapter but had not built a prototype. The manufacturer estimated that
if it built the adapter, it would add about $3000 to the $56,000 price
of its lift.) Other commenters made quite a different point --that in
6 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:25
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
some operating conditions, such as boarding a seaplane from a floating
platform or in severe winter weather in Alaska, it was doubtful that
use of lifts would be feasible.
Carriers and their organizations requested exemptions for the
Fairchild Metro and Beech 1900 models because of the potential damage
problem. Also, airports, carriers, and their organizations sought
exemptions for small airports and carriers with one -employee
operations. The latter request was made on the basis that it can take
two persons to provide boarding assistance to some passengers and extra
personnel might have to be brought in to provide the assistance.
One disability group said that inexpensive modifications can be
made to lifts to make them work with most aircraft. This commenter said
that carriers should have a burden of proof to demonstrate that an
aircraft cannot be accessed without violating established safety
standards before a waiver would be warranted. Other commenters
suggested that, on 24-hour notice, an alternative means of compliance
should be provided (e.g., substituting a different aircraft), or that
airports should have enough different sorts of lifts to service all
aircraft that stop there.
About ten comments from carriers said that there were problems with
some aircraft even if a lift could get a wheelchair -using passenger to
the aircraft door. For example, turning radius limits, aisle widths of
12-14 inches, or other constraints or obstruction problems may make it
difficult, particularly for large, heavy, or significantly mobility -
impaired passengers, to proceed to a seat, or at least to a seat in
which the passenger could sit consistent with the FAA's exit row
seating rule. (Some disability community comments recommended modifying
the exit row rule in small aircraft to avoid this latter problem.)
Carrier comments suggested that
[[Page 56413]]
boarding assistance should be waived for these aircraft , since it
would be a futile exercise. (Waiver requests went primarily to the
Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 C and D, both on
this ground and/or on the ground of potential aircraft damage.) In
addition, carriers and some lift manufacturers said there should be an
exception to the boarding assistance requirement for situations in
which a passenger's size, weight, or lack of upper body strength made
it impracticable to assist him or her through a low cabin doorway to a
seat without risking injury to the passenger or carrier personnel. They
also said there are no flight attendants on 19 -seat aircraft to assist
passengers with disabilities and insufficient ground crew to assist at
many non -hub airports. One disability community commenter pointed out,
however, that some individuals who cannot climb steps --and therefore
need a lift to get into the aircraft --can walk a few steps and
therefore proceed to a seat in these aircraft.
DOT Response
From comments and from its own review of various aircraft, the
Department is aware of certain ''problem aircraft '' with which existing
models of lifts do not work well. For instance, float planes, which
land on water and often pick up passengers from docks or floating
platforms, appear to be incompatible with lift use. The final rule will
not require boarding assistance for float planes.
The Department is aware that there are locations in which inclement
weather can sometimes make aircraft operations difficult. The
Department does not believe that it is advisable to waive boarding
assistance requirements in such places, however. Even airports that
face difficult climate conditions enjoy substantial periods in which
weather does not preclude aircraft or lift operations. It makes sense
to require accessibility for those times. Consequently, while the
Department does not intend the rule to require the operation of
boarding assistance equipment when it would be unsafe due to bad
7 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:26
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WA1 Saction=retrieve
weather, the rule will apply to airports in all parts of the country.
We do not anticipate that this will be an overwhelming problem at most
times and places. Weather that is sufficiently bad to preclude boarding
assistance but not bad enough to preclude aircraft operations is not
likely to occur on such a large percentage of days as would make a
boarding assistance requirement futile. When weather is bad enough to
preclude aircraft operations, the problem is obviously moot.
The Department is persuaded that it is not reasonable to impose
boarding assistance requirements with respect to aircraft models in
which a lift would create a significant risk of damage to the aircraft
(e.g., by coming within less than a foot of the propeller assembly) or
in which the internal configuration of the aircraft effectively
precludes a passenger using a boarding or aisle chair from getting to a
non -exit row seat. To the Department's knowledge, the following are the
only aircraft models that would be exempt from boarding assistance
requirements on this basis:
<bullet> Fairchild Metro --The major problem with accessing this
aircraft via a lift is a propeller assembly that juts out almost on
line with the passenger entrance door. Even if a lift is able to
access the door at an angle, there would be only 4-11 inches of
space between the lift and the propeller assembly. This presents a
high risk of costly damage to the aircraft (e.g., according to
carriers, up to an estimated $250,000 plus lost revenue from the
approximately two months of repair time) if lifts are deployed with
only slight imprecision. In addition, the four foot -high doorway,
12 -inch aisle, and high platform on which seats are located present
nearly insurmountable barriers to access for non-ambulatory
passengers to non -exit row seats.
<bullet> Jetstream 31 --Some lifts cannot access this aircraft
because of a curvature of the aircraft doorsill that prevents lifts
from interfacing with the aircraft door without damaging the
aircraft. Other lifts can interface with the aircraft; however, the
low door makes passenger boarding from the lift a very awkward
procedure (e.g., a passenger may have to be tilted backward to a
nearly supine position to enter the aircraft). The more serious
problem, however, is enabling a passenger to get from the aircraft
door to a non -exit row seat. To get to the aircraft aisle from the
door requires a passenger in a boarding chair to make a 45 -degree
turn in the aisle (which is possible only for a passenger with a
12.5 inch width or less). This aircraft has a 13 -inch aisle, but
seats overhang the aisle, making it impossible for even a 12 -inch
wide boarding aisle to access more than one non -exit row seat. If a
passenger is able to get to this seat, the passenger must have good
upper body strength and the help of two carrier personnel to be
transferred from the chair and lifted over the back of the seat.
<bullet> Beach 1900 (C and D models) --A cabin configuration
similar to that of the Jetstream 31 presents very significant
barriers to providing access to non -exit row seats for non-
ambulatory passengers. The four -foot high aircraft door makes it
necessary to tilt a boarding chair to a nearly supine position, with
the carrier personnel assisting the boarding having to bend over
while maneuvering the chair through the door. A 12 -inch chair cannot
fit down the aircraft aisle, and does not allow the maneuvering room
necessary for an independent transfer. Passengers must have good
upper body strength and assistance from two carrier personnel to
rotate and swing their bodies into a seat located behind the chair
(or must crawl down the aisle to a seat).
The rule includes exceptions from boarding assistance requirements
for these three aircraft models. If there are other aircraft that have
similar difficulties, the rule gives the Department of Transportation
discretion to add to the list. It should be emphasized that air
carriers are not authorized to exempt other aircraft from boarding
assistance services on their own initiative.
8 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:26
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://f webgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
It should be noted that there may be situations in which the
ability of a passenger to use a boarding chair to get to a non -exit row
seat may vary with the passenger's size and weight. For example, a very
large, heavy passenger may not be able to fit into the boarding chairs
used on narrow -aisle commuter aircraft, or may not be able to walk
through a narrow aisle to a seat, while a smaller passenger does not
have the same problem. If, for this reason, the passenger cannot get to
a seat he or she can use, providing boarding assistance is a futile
gesture that the carrier is not required to make. On the other hand, a
passenger who cannot climb steps --and therefore needs a lift to board --
may be able to walk a few steps to a seat. In such a situation,
providing boarding assistance is not a futile gesture, and the rule
requires carriers to provide it. If a passenger with a disability
asserts that he or she can walk the needed distance from the aircraft
door to a non -exit row seat, the carrier must provide the boarding
assistance and allow the passenger to attempt to reach the seat.
Passengers who use lifts to access commuter aircraft need to know,
in advance, whether lift service is available. Passengers are unlikely
to be aware which aircraft model their flight will use. Consequently,
the Department is amending the information section of the ACAA rule to
direct carriers to tell passengers who request the information or who
note that they use a wheelchair for boarding whether the aircraft model
scheduled to be used for a particular flight is one on which boarding
assistance is available. This information would include notice of the
availability of boarding assistance at boarding, departure, and
intermediate points. In addition, carriers should make such information
routinely available on all media through which they make information
available to the general public (e.g., 800 numbers, reservation
systems, published schedules). The Department emphasizes the critical
need for this information to be conveyed accurately and promptly,
because, in its
[[Page 56414]]
absence, the travel plans of individuals with disabilities are likely
to be disrupted. Airlines and their agents must ensure that this
function is performed. Like other violations of the Air Carrier Access
Act, failure to comply with this information provision can subject
regulated parties to enforcement action, including civil penalties.
Consideration of issues concerning aircraft design for
accessibility is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We note, however,
that some older models of commuter aircraft that present some of these
problems appear to be gradually being phased out of the commuter fleet.
The 1996 FAA commuter safety standards are likely to accelerate the
elimination of some older 19 -seat models from the fleet. The exit row
rule is part of an FAA safety rule separate from Part 382.
Consideration of changes in that rule related to seat availability in
small commuter aircraft are also beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The Department does not believe, given the way aircraft are used
and scheduled by carriers, that it would be practicable to require more
accessible models of aircraft to be designated or substituted for
flights that passengers with disabilities want to use, even on advance
notice.
3. Boarding Assistance Methods
The NPRM proposed that boarding assistance should be provided using
suitable devices (not normally used for freight) " but that "hand -
carrying''
hand -
carrying" (i.e., picking up a passenger's body in the arms of airline
personnel) would never be required. There was general agreement among
commenters that hand -carrying was a bad idea, for both safety and
dignity reasons. Some disability community commenters did say, however,
that it should be permitted in an emergency or when a lift was not
available or inoperative, at least with the consent of the passenger.
The NPRM, like the present rule, did not exclude boarding chairs,
used to carry passengers up airstairs, from the scope of "suitable
devices'' that could be used to provide boarding assistance. It did ask
9 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:26
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
for comment on whether the use of boarding chairs was appropriate for
this purpose. Several commenters (including lift manufacturers,
disability community commenters, and an airline) said that boarding
chairs should be used for this purpose only when a lift is inoperable
or when there is an emergency. For most disability community
commenters, using a boarding chair in this way is tantamount to hand -
carrying and therefore strongly disfavored. (One commenter noted that
the use of boarding chairs for vertical access, which it regarded as
objectionable, should be distinguished from the use of aisle or
transfer chairs on board the lift or aircraft, which are needed to
assist many passengers to their seats.) On the other hand, many other
commenters (including airlines and their groups, airports, and one
disability group) advocated permitting the continued use of boarding
chairs when it was more cost-effective to do so (e.g., at an airport
with few enplanements), when it would avoid delay (e.g., when an
airport's lift was being used elsewhere), or when a lift was broken.
These commenters said allowing the use of boarding chairs in at least
some situations would provide greater flexibility to all concerned.
DOT Response
The main point of this regulation is to ensure that, in as many
situations as possible, passengers with disabilities be able to travel
by air, with safety and dignity. Having airline personnel carry a
passenger up stairs in a boarding chair increases risk of injury both
to passengers and airline personnel, and it can often be an undignified
and frightening experience for passengers. Consequently, the rule does
not permit this practice.
This does not mean that boarding chairs and/or aisle chairs cannot
be used in the boarding assistance process. Indeed, their use is
necessary to get the passenger to a seat from a lift. Nor does it mean
that carrier personnel are relieved of their obligation, as part of the
boarding assistance process, to assist passengers in transferring from
their own wheelchair to a boarding or aisle chair, and then from that
device to an aircraft seat. It just means that, under normal
circumstances on 19-30 seat aircraft, carrier personnel may not lift
passengers in boarding chairs up stairs as the means of effecting the
level change needed for boarding. Boarding stairs are not "suitable
devices'' for this purpose on 19-30 seat aircraft.
In abnormal circumstances (e.g., if a lift breaks down and needs to
be repaired) or with respect to aircraft that are exempt from the
boarding assistance requirement, the carrier would use whatever means
are available (including boarding chairs but not hand -carrying) to
provide boarding assistance. The use of alternative means is
conditioned on the passenger's consent. This is not a requirement to
create a means of boarding assistance where none exists or is feasible.
It simply means that if a practicable alternative means of providing
assistance in fact exists in a particular situation, carriers are to
use it. In an emergency evacuation situation, the carrier would
obviously do whatever is needed to deal with the emergency, regardless
of other considerations.
There is apparent unanimity that hand -carrying (in the sense of
bodily picking up a passenger for purposes of a level change, as
distinct from providing assistance using a boarding or aisle chair or
assisting in the transfer of a passenger) is a bad idea. The final rule
specifically provides that this practice is never required (other than
when necessary for an emergency evacuation).
The Department notes that the requirements of this amendment
concern boarding assistance only for 19-30 seat commuter aircraft. The
existing provisions of Part 382 concerning boarding assistance for
larger aircraft (see Sec. 382.39(a) (1)-(3)) remain in effect, without
change. Under these requirements, airlines may carry passengers up
airstairs in boarding chairs. Airstairs used with larger aircraft are
more likely to have sufficient weight-bearing capacity for this type of
boarding assistance, and many of the lift models designed for 19-30
10 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:26
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate.access. gpo. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
seat aircraft do not work with larger aircraft. While the Department
believes that use of lifts for boarding is preferable for larger as
well as smaller aircraft, changes in the methods of boarding assistance
used for the larger aircraft are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
4. Time Frames
The NPRM contained two time frames. First, it proposed 9 months
from the effective date of the rule for carriers and airports to
complete agreements to provide lifts. Second, it proposed 3 years from
the effective date of the rule as the implementation date for lift
service under the agreements.
With respect to the time period for the agreements, airline
associations, airlines and some airports suggested a year, principally
because they believed it would take that time to work out the multiple
agreements necessary under the NPRM. Lift manufacturers and disability
groups, on the other hand, favored shorter time frames (e.g., 2-6
months), principally because many years have passed since the ACAA
regulations have been in place, lifts have been available for some
time, further delay would work a financial hardship on manufacturers,
and airlines and airports have had a long time to prepare to provide
boarding assistance. Given the accessibility needs of passengers, these
commenters did not believe that a longer negotiation period was
warranted. An airport association,
[[Page 56415]]
an airport, and an airline favored the proposed 9 -month period.
There was a similar variety of views with respect to the
implementation date for the agreements. Disability groups and equipment
manufacturers favored a 1 or 1\1/2\ -year implementation period, rather
than the three-year period proposed in the NPRM, but supported
extensions of up to five years for small airports, as opposed to
waivers. These commenters said that lifts are available, that airports
and airlines have had a long time to prepare to provide boarding
assistance, and that equipment costs were small compared to other costs
regularly incurred by airlines and airports. One disability group said
that boarding chairs should be required to provide access immediately.
On the other hand, an airline association and some state and local
transportation agencies favored the proposed 3 -year period. Many of
these commenters added that the rule should be flexible, with
provisions for granting relief from the deadline if factors such as
funding delays or the inability of manufacturers to meet demand
prevented parties from complying on time. One airline association said
the 3 -year period should start to run from the date of the agreement,
rather than the effective date of the rule, because manufacturers would
not be able to meet the demand otherwise.
Two disability agencies said that implementation should be required
as soon as practicable, with three years being the outside limit. Two
commenters, an airline and an individual, favored a two-year period.
Two lift manufacturers suggested a staggered implementation schedule,
with 12-15 months for larger airports, two years for medium-size
airports, and three years for small airports. They expressed the
concern that, absent such a schedule, acquisition of lifts would be
back-loaded at the end of the implementation period.
DOT Response
The Department's task is to find a good balance between the need to
implement accessibility as soon as possible and the need to give
parties a reasonable amount of time to do the work needed to accomplish
this objective. With respect to the time to conclude agreements, the
Department believes that the NPRM proposal of 9 months is a good middle
ground between these two considerations, as well as between the
concerns expressed by different groups of commenters.
With respect to implementation time, the Department will require
the agreements to be carried out as soon as practicable, as is the
11 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:27
WAIS Document Retrieval http://fiwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
typical practice in disability regulations requiring modifications to
facilities or practices (e.g., program accessibility changes required
under the Department of Justice ADA Title II regulation). The maximum
time for implementation will be two years for large and medium hubs
(1.2 million or more annual enplanements), three years for small hubs
(250,000-1.2 million annual enplanements), and four years for non -hub
primary airports (10,000-250,000 annual enplanements). This phase-in
will result in accessibility at the airports carrying the greatest
number of passengers sooner (hubs handle 97-98 percent of total
enplanements), while reducing costs and burdens at the smaller
airports. Again, these time frames represent what the Department
believes to be a good balance among the policy considerations and
commenter concerns involved.
5. Other issues
The NPRM raised the question of whether use of lifts would create
schedule disruptions or delays, particularly when multiple demands on
lift use might be made. Commenters had a number of thoughts on this
point. An airline association said that it takes 10-15 minutes to get a
lift to a given aircraft and board a disabled passenger, possibly
interfering with the 5-20 minute turnaround time many carriers try to
achieve, leading the group to request a 48-hour advance notice
requirement for assistance. Another airline association and an airline
also supported the idea of advance notice for boarding assistance, to
avoid or help deal with conflicting demands for lift service. Two
airlines and an airport expressed concern about delays, particularly at
hub airports where there might be multiple demands for assistance, but
one of these airlines noted it had no accurate data on the time needed
to complete a boarding using a lift. However, airline commenters
generally said that boarding passengers in chairs was faster and more
cost-effective than using lifts.
Two commenters noted that airlines encounter flight delays for a
variety of reasons, and thought that assisted boardings would not
significantly add to this problem, given their relative infrequency. A
lift manufacturer said an actual boarding with its lift took just 3-5
minutes, faster, it said, than using a boarding chair. Another
manufacturer and a state agency noted that, under an FAA advisory
circular for lift devices, lift boardings are to be accomplished in six
minutes or less, which would also be unlikely to create significant
delays. Several disability community commenters also expressed doubts
that delays would be a significant problem, saying there was no data to
support the idea that a problem would exist.
The NPRM also asked about what, if any, training requirements there
should be for personnel who provide boarding assistance. Two airline
associations and two airlines said that no additional training
requirements --beyond the general training requirement provided in the
existing ACAA rule --was warranted. Airlines already have a vested
interest in making sure their personnel perform their duties safely and
effectively, one of the associations added. Three equipment
manufacturers also opposed additional training requirements, one noting
that the FAA advisory circular already called for training for lift
operators, one asserting that the training required by the FAA circular
was too lengthy, and the other expressing concern about the cost of
training to manufacturers.
A larger group of commenters, including disability groups,
individuals, and state and local agencies, supported more specific
training requirements. Four of these specified that sensitivity
training should be required. A disability group said DOT should
strenuously monitor training, since they saw poorly trained employees
as one of the biggest problems that passengers with disabilities
encounter. An airport supported training but suggested that it should
be provided by manufacturers and carriers (unless the airport actually
operated the lift).
Three commenters suggested that the use of lifts should be required
for aircraft with fewer than 19 seats, if the lifts work with the
particular aircraft. One of these commenters noted two small aircraft
12 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:27
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
models with which lifts would work. An airport suggested that this
requirement would make sense only in cases where there was an
accessible means of deboarding at the destination point. Several
disability community commenters said that, whatever the final
requirements, allowing denied boardings was not acceptable. Lift
manufacturers emphasized their products were available.
DOT Response
The final rule, like the NPRM, requires boarding assistance under
the agreement required by this amendment only for 19-30 seat aircraft.
There may be some situations in which the same boarding assistance
equipment can be used to provide access to larger or smaller aircraft.
Where this is the case, the Department recommends that carriers and
airports use it for this
[[Page 56416]]
purpose, in preference to denying transportation on smaller aircraft or
using less desirable means of boarding assistance for larger aircraft.
The general ACAA requirement of training to proficiency (including
refresher training, as needed, to maintain proficiency) in matters
affecting transportation of passengers with disabilities applies to
boarding assistance as well as other activities (see Sec. 382.61(a); to
the extent that airport personnel are involved in boarding assistance
at a given airport, a similar requirement extends to airports through
the amendment to 49 CFR Part 27). While training is clearly important
for all aspects of transportation accessibility, the Department does
not believe, as a general matter, that a separate training requirement
specifically focused on boarding assistance is needed. We note that
Sec. 382.61 requires refresher training, as appropriate to the duties
of each employee, to ensure that proficiency is maintained. Because, in
the absence of means of boarding assistance, some commuter carriers may
have served few persons with mobility impairments, carrier employees
trained previously may not have maintained proficiency in boarding
assistance and other matters necessary to proper service to such
passengers. Where this is the case, the training requirements of the
ACAA call for bringing relevant personnel up to proficiency in all
these matters.
There is one exception. The training requirements of Sec. 382.61(a)
apply only to carriers who operate aircraft with more than 19 seats.
Carriers who operate aircraft with 19 seats, but do not operate larger
aircraft, are not covered by this requirement. Consequently, this rule
will require any carriers falling into this category to provide
training to proficiency in boarding assistance for those personnel who
perform boarding assistance duties. This amendment does not require
such carriers to carry out other training responsibilities under
Sec. 382.61(a), although it is intended that employees of these
carriers receive refresher training as needed to maintain proficiency
in boarding assistance services.
The information provided by commenters concerning the time required
for assisted boarding varied considerably. Even given the lengthier
scenarios, however, it is not reasonable to conclude --absent a
massively larger demand for assisted boardings than any commenters have
anticipated --that significant systemic schedule disruption is likely to
occur. As some commenters pointed out, individual flights are delayed
for a variety of reasons --weather, mechanical problems, air traffic
congestion, waiting for passengers from incoming connecting flights,
etc. --on a routine basis. No one likes these delays, but it seems
fanciful to suggest that delays from lift boardings of disabled
passengers will make a significant difference in the overall pattern of
delayed flights, or have a measurable effect on a carrier's overall on-
time performance record.
The Department is not persuaded that this concern warrants adding a
48-hour advance notice requirement for boarding assistance. Obviously,
13 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:27
r
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
passengers may wish to inform carriers of their plans in advance to
attempt to make their arrangements as smooth as possible. However, as
in the case of passengers who are traveling with electric wheelchairs,
we believe it is reasonable for airlines to have some reasonable amount
of time to provide the service in question. Consequently, carriers will
be permitted to require that an individual needing lift service check
in at least an hour before scheduled departure.
Airport Facility Requirements
Background/NPRM
The Department's current section 504 and ACAA provisions concerning
airport facilities differ in a number of details. This NPRM proposed to
make changes to harmonize the two sets of requirements. The Department
published a notice of proposed rulemaking for section 504 and an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking under the ACAA that would have
harmonized the two provisions in 1990, at the same time as it published
its ACAA final rule. The Department received very few comments in
response to those notices, and many of the specific points raised by
the commenters have been overtaken by the enactment of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The NPRM proposed to add requirements in the ACAA and section 504
rules for a ''program accessible '' path from the beginning of a
passenger's encounter with the airport facility to the aircraft door,
with emphasis on the means of moving between the gate and the aircraft.
This is a particular concern with respect to commuter aircraft, which
typically do not use loading bridges, and passengers often have to
descend from the gate level to the tarmac level to board the aircraft.
The proposal suggested that meeting Title III or Title II ADA standards
was an appropriate requirement for airports and airlines under the ACAA
and section 504, respectively.
Because ADA facility accessibility standards say little
specifically about airports, the Department proposed to retain, with
some modifications, the airport -specific requirements of the current
ACAA and 504 rules. The NPRM sought comment on whether doing so would
be confusing or duplicative. The NPRM repeated the existing language of
the ACAA regulation concerning telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDDs), saying that at least one TDD shall be placed in each terminal.
The NPRM asked for comment on how this requirement should be
interpreted and implemented.
Comments
Two issues predominated in commenters' discussion of this portion
of the proposal: the idea of an accessible path through the airport and
the placement of TDDs. A disability group objected to the accessible
path proposal on the basis that it fell short of what was required by
the ADA and ACAA. This commenter also said that such steps as using a
boarding chair to carry a passenger down steps from the gate level to
the tarmac was not a proper part of an accessible path. A state agency
said that using program accessibility approaches other than facility
modification had saved the commenter a substantial amount of money.
Three disability community commenters said that the ADA accessibility
guidelines (ADAAGs) should apply to an accessible path through
airports. An airport association and an individual suggested that
airports should have five years to implement an accessible path. An
airport supported the accessible path concept, as long as the rule made
clear that boarding assistance was the airlines' job. An individual
said that airports should have a disability specialist available to
assist passengers. A state agency noted that there were some
inconsistencies between the ADAAGs and the ACAA provisions that the
NPRM proposed to retain, and also pointed to inconsistencies between
the ADAAGs and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS), which
public entities could choose to use under Title II of the ADA.
't4 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:27
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WA1 Saction=retrieve
With respect to TDDs (one commenter suggested using the term
" TTYs " instead), two commenters suggested requiring improved signage
to direct passengers to where the instruments were located. A number of
commenters asked for more specificity in the definition of
''terminal,'' to avoid differing interpretations. A disability agency
suggested simply using the ADAAG standard for placement of these
[[Page 56417]]
phones, while a TDD manufacturer supported specifying a number of
specific locations in terminals where TDDs would have to be placed.
(This manufacturer quoted a $995 price for a vandal -resistant public
unit.) An airline favored keeping the existing standard, to avoid
confusion between ADA and ACAA requirements.
DOT Response
The Department believes that the simplest and best solution to the
issue of airport accessibility standards is to make applicable to
airports (through section 504) and airlines (through the ACAA) the
requirements applicable to other public facilities and public
accommodations of Titles II and III of the ADA, respectively. This
means that there will be one common standard for airport access, under
which airports and airlines will be subject to the same obligations as
other transportation facilities and places of public accommodation.
Special airport -related standards that, as some commenters pointed out,
could cause confusion will be eliminated.
This approach is consistent with the relationship among disability
statutes that Congress intended. Air carriers' terminal facilities
appear not to be subject to direct ADA coverage. Under the Department
of Justice (DOJ) rules implementing Title III of the ADA, airport
terminals are not viewed as a place of public accommodation. The reason
is that places of public accommodation include only those terminals
used for the provision of ''designated'' or "specified'' public
transportation, and transportation by aircraft does not constitute
—designated" or ''specified'' public transportation. Congress
excluded transportation by aircraft from these ADA provisions because
Congress had already subjected carriers to the ACAA, and it did not
want to impose duplicative requirements.
The language and legislative history of the ADA, however, reveal no
Congressional intent that carriers' facilities be subject to any
different substantive requirements from those affecting places of
public accommodation. It is clear that carriers have an ACAA obligation
with respect to airport facilities. In defining the standard by which
carriers' compliance with this obligation is judged, the Department
believes it makes sense to refer to the ADA standard for public
accommodations. Consequently, the final rule provides that carriers,
with respect to terminal facilities and services, would be deemed to
comply with their ACAA obligations if they meet the requirements
spelled out for places of public accommodation in Department of Justice
Title III ADA rules.
Under Department of Justice regulations implementing Title II of
the ADA (28 CFR Part 35), ''title II applies to everything and anything
a public entity does * * * All governmental activities of public
entities are covered.'' (56 FR 35696; July 26, 1991). Public airport
authorities are public entities for purposes of Title II; consequently,
their activities and facilities appear subject to the requirements of
DOJ Title II rules. It has long been clear that airport authorities
that receive DOT financial assistance are subject to section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. In amending the Department's
section 504 rule provision concerning DOT -assisted airports, it makes
sense to refer to ADA standards. (Congress, in enacting the ADA, made
clear that it intended for consistent substantive standards to apply
under both statutes.) Therefore, under the final rule, the basic
standard for judging whether a public airport authority complies with
15 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:27
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
section 504 is compliance with the DOJ rules for Title II of the ADA.
Obviously, there are some portions of airports at which airport
operators' section 504 obligations and the ACAA obligations of carriers
overlap. The Department believes that these overlaps can be treated in
the same manner as the relationships between public entity landlords
and private entity tenants discussed in the Department of Justice ADA
regulations. This means, of course, that airports and airlines will
have to work out accessibility issues and relationships at the local
level.
This approach means that there will not be special requirements in
the DOT rules concerning such issues as placement of TDDs and inter -
terminal transportation. Inter -terminal transportation will be subject
to the DOT ADA regulations affecting transportation services generally.
(Intra -terminal transportation, as a service provided by airlines and/
or airports, is subject to the same Title II or Title III requirements
as any other service. There are no ADAAG standards applicable to the
design or construction of intra -terminal vehicles, such as the electric
carts used in many airports.) Placement of TDDs will be subject to the
same standards affecting public facilities and places of public
accommodation under the ADA. Consequently, the issue concerning the
definition of ''terminal'' for TDD placement purposes becomes moot.
We point out that not only the general terminal areas, but also
some areas open to part of the traveling public (e.g., the airline
11 clubs'' providing special accommodations in terminals to frequent
fliers or persons who pay a fee to the airlines) are subject to the
accessibility requirements of this rule. These are spaces that, in
Title III terms, would be places of public accommodation, and it is
unlikely that most would fall within the limited ''private club ''
exception to the ADA, as defined in the Department of Justice Title III
rules. One implication of this coverage is that, if telephone service
is provided to ''members'' within the club space, then TDD requirements
would apply to the "club.'' It would not be consistent with the rules
for the carrier to refer the passenger to a TDD phone in the general
passenger area of the terminal, since the whole point of the club is to
provide a refuge from the noise and bustle of the terminal.
The rule provides that the Americans with Disability Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAGs) will be the standard by which airport
facility accessibility will be judged. The ADAAGs include a provision
(10.4.1) dealing with new construction at airports. This provision
applies directly to new construction and alterations at airports. It is
also the standard for modifying facilities to meet accessibility
requirements for existing facilities, under the ''program
accessibility'' (see 28 CFR Sec. 35.150) or ''barrier removal '' (see 28
CFR Sec. 36.304-305) provisions of the Department of Justice Title II
and Title III rules.
The Department is aware that, for the present, public entities
subject to Title II of the ADA can choose between compliance with the
ADAAGs and compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
(UFAS), which differ in some particulars from the ADAAGs. The
Department of Justice, DOT, and the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) have proposed applying the
ADAAGs as the exclusive standards for Title II entities. Rather than
further amend the ADA and ACAA rules after this ADA rule change goes
into effect, we believe it is more sensible to use the ADAAGs as the
standard for airport accessibility at this time. We regard the ADAAGs
as the pre-eminent accessibility standard at this time, and its use
will also avoid any inconsistency between the standards applicable to
airlines and airports under this rule.
Given the application of ADA requirements and standards to airport
facilities, the only point on which the Department believes it is
necessary to spell out an additional specific requirement concerns an
11 accessible
[[Page 56418]]
16 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:28
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
path'' for level changes between gate and aircraft boarding areas. The
Department clearly interprets ADA requirements as applying to the path
an individual must take between the entrance to the airport and the
means of boarding the aircraft, specifically including the way a
passenger moves between the gate and the aircraft. This is important
because, in many cases, the gate area will be on an upstairs level of
an airport, while aircraft --particularly small commuter aircraft --are
boarded from the tarmac. The basic idea is that a key aspect of
airports' and carriers' program --getting someone through the airport
and onto an aircraft --must be accessible to individuals with
disabilities, including those using wheelchairs.
Communicable Diseases .
Background
Section 382.51 of the existing ACAA rule provides that a carrier
may not refuse transportation to a passenger, require the person to
provide a medical certificate, or impose other conditions or
restrictions on passengers, on the basis that the passenger has a
communicable disease, except
with respect to an individual who has a communicable disease or
infection which has been determined by the U.S. Surgeon General, the
Centers for Disease Control, or other Federal public health
authority knowledgeable about the disease or infection, to be
transmissible to other persons in the normal course of flight.
This provision was originally designed in response to a number of
incidents in the 1980s in which persons with AIDS had been denied
transportation or otherwise discriminated against by air carriers,
apparently because of fear of, or misinformation about, HIV infection
and how it is transmitted. It subsequently became apparent to the
Department that this provision of the rule needed clarification. Given
the absence of definitive guidance from the Surgeon General, the
Centers for Disease Control, or the Public Health Service, (which the
Department has unsuccessfully sought), the closest approach to medical
guidance the Department has been able to find is a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulation listing several diseases (e.g.,
infectious tuberculosis, several viral hemmoragic fevers) appropriate
for travel restrictions. The Department issued guidance based on this
FDA list, stating that since other diseases have not been named by
Federal public health authorities, carriers may not deny or restrict
transportation of persons with other diseases.
Carrier medical personnel expressed the concern that this guidance
is too restrictive, leading to potential conflicts between the rule and
their normal, prudent medical judgment. They have cited persons in the
infectious stages of chicken pox or measles as persons who it may be
appropriate to restrict, to protect the health of other passengers. In
response to their concern, an airline association requested that the
Department withdraw the guidance in question. In addition, it has been
pointed out that, read literally, the current regulatory provision
could be construed to allow carriers to exclude persons with illnesses
that are clearly communicable by airborne transmission or casual
contact but which are not serious for most persons, such as the common
cold (the Department would not construe the rule in this fashion,
however).
The Department based its NPRM proposal on three principles:
(1) It is reasonable for carriers to impose restrictions on
transportation only of persons with diseases that are readily
communicable, in the normal course of flights, by airborne
transmission or casual contact. (For example, restrictions could not
be imposed on persons because they were infected with HIV.)
(2) It is reasonable for carriers to impose restrictions on
17 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:28
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate.access.gpo. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
transportation only of persons with diseases that normally have
serious consequences for the health of persons who catch the
disease. (For example, restrictions could not be imposed on persons
because they have a common cold.)
(3) Carriers should impose restrictions on persons for reasons
relating to communicable diseases only with the advice and
concurrence of a physician. (That is, airline personnel such as
pilots, flight attendants, or gate agents could not make unilateral
decisions to impose restrictions on passengers.)
NPRM
The Department proposed rewriting the current Sec. 382.51(b) to
reflect these three principles. The NPRM proposed two methods carriers
could use to implement these principles. First, when faced with someone
who may have a contagious disease that may make travel inadvisable, the
carrier can obtain a specific recommendation from a physician. Second,
the carrier, together with its medical staff or consultants, could
devise a list of diseases that can affect travel, consistent with the
three principles. The list would include information on the stages of
various diseases during which travel would be contraindicated. The list
would be made part of the carrier's regular information base for
employees (e.g., manuals, computer reservation system instructions).
The NPRM suggested that carriers, to promote consistency, should
coordinate a single, unified list, so the same diseases have the same
consequences on all airlines.
Under the proposal, in cases where there is no dispute between the
carrier and a passenger over the fact that a passenger has a disease on
the hist at a point in time when it is contagious, the passenger could
be denied transportation until a later time without the carrier having
to obtain a recommendation from a physician in the particular case.
However, if the passenger denied that he or she has a disease on the
list, or acknowledges having the disease but insists that it is not at
the stage which the list describes as infectious, then the carrier
employee would have to consult a physician.
In addition, the proposed amendment stated that airlines would have
to impose the least restrictive alternative in communicable disease
situations (e.g., should not deny transportation when requiring a
medical certificate is sufficient); would allow a passenger to travel
at his or her original fare if travel is postponed as the result of
having a communicable disease; and would provide, on request, a written
explanation of any restrictions that are imposed for reasons relating
to communicable diseases.
Comments
One airline and a number of disability community commenters
supported the NPRM proposal. One disability group suggested adopting
the Department of Justice's "direct threat'' standard (from DOJ's ADA
Title III rule), including its requirement that there be an
individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on
current medical knowledge or the best objective evidence available, to
ascertain the nature, duration, and severity of the risk, as well as
mitigation measures that could apply. Providing the passenger a face
mask was one mitigating measure suggested by two commenters. Another
such group recommended that the carrier should be required to consider
the recommendations of the passenger's treating physician, while a
carrier said that the passenger's personal physician should certify
that the individual can fly safely.
With respect to the idea of a list of communicable diseases,
airlines and their associations had a variety of comments. One airline
wanted DOT to create the list. Other airlines wanted a Federal health
agency to create a list, said the medical community's input
[[Page 56419]]
18 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:28
WAIS Document Retrieval
A
http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAl Saction=retrieve
should be obtained, that there should be flexibility to add new
diseases to the list, and that there should be uniformity in any such
list given that passengers often use more than one carrier for a trip.
Two carriers said that airlines, which do not have extensive medical
staffs, should not be assigned the task off creating a list. For the
same reason, one association said that an industry group should be
formed to compile the list. Another association questioned the utility
of such a list, since new diseases appear from time to time, and
reliance on a list would be a disincentive to considering individual
circumstances.
With respect to the idea of consultation with a physician, two
carriers objected that it was impractical to seek medical advice in
each case, and that airline personnel should have the discretion to
deny boarding. An airline association suggested that qualified medical
personnel other than a physician should be permitted to make the
determination involved, since physicians might not be available in a
timely fashion.
Other comments included a request by an airline association that
diseases transmissible by casual contact, as well as by airborne means,
should be a ground for restricting travel, a suggestion by the same
group that any ability to travel at a later date be limited to 60 days,
and a request by a disability organization that carriers be required to
reimburse passengers for expenses incurred because of a carrier's
decision to postpone travel.
DOT Response
The Department has considered the comments on this issue carefully,
recognizing the difficulty that carriers and passengers can have in
making judgments about when it may be inappropriate for a passenger to
travel because of illness. Based on comments, the Department's
discussions with Federal health officials over a period of several
years, and the lack of expertise within the Department, we have decided
that it is not feasible for us to compile a list of diseases that would
warrant a denial of transportation or to ask carriers to do so.
Consequently, we are not adopting the portion of the proposal
concerning lists.
With respect to the criteria for making decisions on these issues,
the Department believes the best available model is the ''direct
threat'' language in the Department of Justice's Title III ADA
regulation. The DOJ language reads as follows:
Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety
of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies,
practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or
services. In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat
to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make
an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that
relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available
objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity
of the risk; the probability that the actual injury will actually
occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices,
or procedures will mitigate the risk. 28 CFR Sec. 36.208).
This is well-established language that gives due regard to both
nondiscrimination on the basis of disability and the need of a public
accommodation to make reasoned judgments to protect the health and
safety of other persons. Consequently, the final rule adapts this
language to the context of air travel.
This approach is compatible with the Department's purposes in
publishing its NPRM. For example, a communicable disease that is not
readily transmissible by airborne means or by casual contact is
unlikely to pose a direct threat; nor would a disease that, if
communicated by these means, does not pose a significant health threat
19 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:28
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
to the general passenger population. AIDS, on one hand, and the common
cold, on the other, are examples of communicable diseases that would
not generally pose direct threats. Making medical judgments cannot be
entrusted to personnel without medical training. Consequently, it is
unlikely that a ''direct threat'' finding could be made about a
communicable disease that did not rest on a medical determination by a
physician or nurse.
This direct threat concept dovetails with the requirement that the
airline find the least restrictive means of addressing an identified
risk. It is not consistent with this provision to deny transportation
to someone if a medical certificate, or a face mask, or seating the
individual a few rows away from other passengers on a half -full flight,
or some other action will be sufficient to mitigate the risk to other
passengers involved to the point where the individual can travel
without endangering others.
While it would be useful for an airline concerned about a
passenger's condition to consult with the passenger's physician, we do
not believe that it is necessary to mandate such consultation in the
regulation. Such consultation occurs in many cases now; certainly it
would be a reasonable part of the process needed to make a direct
threat determination. Nor do we believe it would be appropriate to
require carriers to compensate passengers whose travel is delayed for
medical reasons under this section. Denial of service by a carrier
under these circumstances does not constitute improper conduct that
should result in compensation. We note that the NPRM already covered
diseases spread by casual contact as well as airborne means, and the
final rule retains this point. Finally, we agree with the comment that
someone whose travel is postponed for this reason should not have
perpetual right to make the trip. We think that a 90 -day limit could
fairly be imposed by the carrier.
The FAA is conducting research into cabin air quality issues,
which, beginning next year, will include research into the risk of
passengers and crews contracting infectious diseases. In addition,
there is a multiagency working group under the auspices of the
Committee on International Science, Engineering, and Technology Policy
of President Clinton's National Science and Technology Council. This
group is reviewing the U.S. role in detecting, reporting, and
responding to outbreaks of new and re-emerging infectious diseases. To
the extent that research or recommendations from these or other sources
provides additional information bearing on policies affecting airline
transportation of individuals with communicable diseases, the
Department can take account of it in future rulemaking.
Other Issues
In both the ACAA and section 504 rules, the NPRM proposed updating
terminology (e.g., changing —handicapped person'' to ''individual with
disabilities'') consistent with practice under the ADA. The proposed
section 504 amendment would also make two administrative additions,
requiring the submittal of transition plans by any airports which had
not already done so and specifically applying nondiscrimination on the
basis of disability requirements to subsidized Essential Air Service
(EAS) carriers. Unlike most carriers, who do not receive Federal
assistance, these carriers have been covered under the existing section
504 rule, but they have not been mentioned specifically, since Part 27
was promulgated before the Essential Air Service program came under DOT
jurisdiction in January 1985. This administrative addition does not
create any new obligations for subsidized EAS carriers.
One airline commented that airlines should not have to change the
terminology in their compliance manuals if the rule's terms change. We
agree, and we are not imposing such a requirement. There were not any
other
[[Page 5642011
20 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:28
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
comments on these proposals, which the Department will adopt as
proposed.
The NPRM asked for comment on three other issues --seating
accommodations for persons with disabilities, provisions concerning
collapsible electric wheelchairs, and matters relating to the use of
oxygen by passengers. These issues are addressed in a separate
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in today's Federal Register.
Withdrawal of 1990 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the March 6, 1990, issue of Federal Register in which the
Department published the original 1990 Air Carrier Access Act final
rule, the Department also published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM; 55 FR 8076; RIN 2105-AB61). The Department is
withdrawing this SNPRM at this time.
The SNPRM concerned three subjects: airport transportation systems,
standards for boarding chairs, and substitute service when boarding
assistance is not available for small commuter aircraft. These matters
have been overtaken by the present rulemaking, which applies ADA
standards to airport transportation systems and requires boarding
assistance, using lifts rather than boarding chairs, for small commuter
aircraft. The withdrawal is an administrative action that will remove
from the Department's regulatory agenda an item pertaining to an NPRM
on which no further action is anticipated.
Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation
The Department receives frequent questions about the transportation
of service animals by airlines. On July 26, 1996, the Department of
Justice issued Americans with Disabilities Act guidance concerning the
access of service animals to places of public accommodation. The
following guidance is based on the DOJ issuance, with adaptations to
the context of air transportation and answers to questions the
Department has been asked.
The Department of Transportation's rules protecting the rights of
air travelers with disabilities require air carriers to permit
passengers to fly with their service animals. The Air Carrier Access
Act (ACAA) rules say the following:
Carriers shall permit dogs and other service animals used by
individuals with disabilities to accompany the person on a flight.
(1) Carriers shall accept as evidence that an animal is a
service animal identification cards, other written documentation,
presence of harnesses or markings on harnesses, tags or the credible
verbal assurances of the qualified individual with disabilities
using the animal.
(2) Carriers shall permit a service animal to accompany a
qualified individual with disabilities in any seat in which the
person sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area that
must remain unobstructed in order to facilitate an emergency
evacuation.
(14 CFR Sec. 382.55(a))
If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location
of the qualified individual with disabilities whom the animal is
accompanying . . . the carrier shall offer the passenger the
opportunity to move with the animal to a seat location, if present
on the aircraft, where the animal can be accommodated, as an
alternative to requiring that the animal travel with checked
baggage.
(14 CFR Sec. 382.37(c))
The questions and answers below are intended to help carriers and
21 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:29
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
passengers understand how to respond to service animal issues.
1. Q: What is a service animal?
A: Under the ACAA, a service animal is any guide dog, signal dog,
or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an
individual with a disability. If the animal meets this definition, it
is considered a service animal regardless of whether it has been
licensed or certified by a state or local government.
2. Q: What work do service animals perform?
A: Service animals perform some of the tasks and functions that the
individual with a disability cannot perform for him or herself. Guide
dogs that help blind individuals are the type of service animal most
people are familiar with. But there are service animals that assist
persons with other types of disabilities in their day-to-day
activities. Some examples include --
<bullet> Alerting persons with hearing impairments to sounds.
<bullet> Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and picking up things for
persons with mobility impairments.
<bullet> Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance.
An animal that does not perform identifiable tasks or functions for
an individual with a disability probably is not a service animal.
However, it is not essential that the animal perform the functions for
the individual while he or she is traveling on the aircraft. The
functions can be ones that the animal performs for the individual at
his or her destination.
3. Q: What must an airline do when an individual with a disability
using a service animal seeks to travel?
A: The service animal must be permitted to accompany the passenger
with a disability on the flight. The animal must be allowed to
accompany the individual in any seat the individual uses, except where
the animal would obstruct an aisle or other area required by Federal
Aviation Administration safety rules to remain unobstructed for
emergency evacuation purposes. Service animals are typically trained to
curl up under seats, which should reduce the likelihood of such an
obstruction.
If such an obstruction would occur, the animal (and passenger, if
possible) should be relocated to some other place in the cabin where it
will not create such an obstruction. If there is no space in the cabin
that will accommodate the animal without causing such an obstruction,
then the animal is not permitted to travel in the cabin.
To accommodate service animals, airlines are not required to ask
other passengers to relinquish space that they would normally use. For
example, the passenger sitting next to an individual traveling with a
service animal would not need to allow the space under the seat in
front of him or her to be used to accommodate the animal.
4. Q: Is a service animal a pet?
A: A service animal is not a pet. A service animal is a working
animal that performs important functions for an individual with a
disability. The individual with a disability has been trained in the
use of the service animal and is responsible for all handling of the
animal. Consequently, carrier personnel and other passengers should not
attempt to pet, play with, direct, or in any way distract service
animals.
It is also important to realize that a pet is not a service animal.
Many people enjoy the companionship of animals. But this relationship
between an individual and an animal, standing alone, is not sufficient
to cause an animal to be regarded as a service animal.
22 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:29
WAIS Document Retrieval http://fwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
5. Q: How do the requirements of the ACAA rule concerning service
animals relate to an airline's rules about carrying pets?
A: Airlines may have whatever policy they choose concerning pets,
consistent with U.S. Department of Agriculture animal welfare rules.
For example, they can refuse to carry any pets. They can carry pets
only in containers stowed in the cargo compartment. They can allow
small pets in carriers that fit under the
[[Page 56421]]
seat. Since service animals are not pets, the ACAA requires airlines to
modify their pets policies to allow service animals to accompany
persons with a disability in the cabin. When an animal is determined by
the airline not to be a service animal, then the airline would apply to
the animal the same policy that applies to pets.
In any situation in which the airline determines that an animal is
not a service animal, the airline must continue to give the passenger
the opportunity to travel without having the service animal in the
cabin. It is not appropriate to deny transportation to a passenger
because the passenger's animal is determined not to be a service
animal.
6. Q: How can I tell if an animal really is a service animal and not
just a pet?
A: Some, but not all, service animals, wear special collars or
harnesses. For example, guide dogs used by persons with vision
impairments typically wear harnesses that enhance their ability to
guide the visually impaired person. Some, but not all, service animals
are licensed and certified and have identification papers.
If airline employees are not certain that an animal is a service
animal, they may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service
animal required because of a disability. However, an individual who is
planning to travel by air is not necessarily going to be carrying
around documentation of his or her medical condition or disability.
Therefore, while such documentation may be requested as a means of
verifying that the animal is a service animal, it generally may not be
required as a condition of permitting an individual to travel with his
or her service animal. (See Question 9 for a situation in which
documentation may be required.) Likewise, while a number of states have
programs to certify service animals, airline employees may not insist
on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to
accompany the person with a disability.
7. Q: What are ''credible'' verbal assurances that an animal is a
service animal?
A: In the absence of documentation or other obvious evidence that
an animal is a service animal, the only information available to
airline employees about the animal may be what a passenger says about
his or her disability and the use of the animal. Airline employees may
exercise their judgment concerning whether the passenger's statements
about the training and functions of the animal make it reasonable to
think that the animal is a service animal.
The factors discussed in this guidance (e.g., the nature of the
individual's disability, the training the animal is said to have
received, its ability to behave properly in public places, the
functions it is said to perform for the individual) can be used in
evaluating the credibility of the passenger's statements. An airline
complaints resolution official (CRO), whom the Department's ACAA rules
require to be available at each airport that the airline serves, is a
resource that passengers and airline employees can use to resolve
difficult cases.
23 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:29
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
8. Q: What about unusual or multiple animals?
A: Most people are familiar with the use of dogs as service
animals. On some occasions, however, individuals may ask to be
accompanied in an aircraft cabin by other kinds of animals. For
example, in a few cases, monkeys have been trained to provide services
to persons with severe mobility impairments. There have been cases of
passengers requesting to be accompanied by reptiles or rodents. In
addition, some passengers have asked to travel with more than one
animal at a time.
In evaluating these situations, airline employees should keep in
mind some of the important characteristics of service animals. Service
animals are trained to perform specific functions for an indivudal with
a disability, and they are trained to behave properly in public places.
Service animals are generally trained to work on a one-to-one basis
with an individual with a disability. Airline employees may inquire
about these matters and may use their judgment about whether, in light
of these factors, a particular animal is a service animal, as distinct
from a pet that a passenger wants to bring on board.
9. Q: How should airline employees respond to a claim that being
accompanied by an animal is necessary for the emotional well-being
of an individual with a mental or emotional disability?
A: Many people receive emotional support from being near an animal.
The assertion of a passenger that an animal remaining in his or her
company is a needed accommodation to a disability, however, may often
be difficult to verify or to distinguish from the situation of any
person who is fond of a pet. In addition, the animal may not, in such a
situation, perform any visible function. For these reasons, it is
reasonable for airline employees to request appropriate documentation
of the individual's disability and the medical or theraputic necessity
of the passnger's traveling with the animal. Moreover, the animal, like
any service animal, must be trained to behave properly in a public
setting.
10. Q: What about service animals that are not accompanying a
passenger with a disability?
Sometimes, an animal that is trained to work with people with
disabilities may travel by air but not be accompanied by an individual
with a disability for whom the animal performs service animal
functions. For example, a non -disabled handler may transport a
therapy dog'' to a location, such as a rehabilitation center, where
it will perform services for individuals with physical or mental
disabilities.
The Department's Air Carrier Access Act regulation intended to
assist passengers with disabilities by ensuring that they can travel
with the service animals that perform functions for them. When a
service animal is not accompanying a passenger with a disability, the
rule's rationale for permitting the animal to travel in the cabin does
not apply. While the animal may be traveling to a location where it
will perform valuable services to other people, it would be subject to
the airline's general policies with respect to the carriage of animals.
11. Q: What if an animal acts out of control?
A: Service animals are trained to behave properly in public
settings. For example, a properly trained service animal will remain at
its owner's feet. It does not run freely around an aircraft or airport
gate area, bark or growl repeatedly at other persons on the aircraft,
bite or jump on people, or urinate or defecate in the cabin or gate
area. An animal that engages in such disruptive behavior shows that it
has not been successfully trained to function as a service animal in
public settings. Therefore, airlines are not required to treat it as a
24 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:29
AWS Document Retrieval
http: //frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
service animal, even if the animal is one that performs an assistive
function for a passenger with a disability. However, airline personnel
should consider available means of mitigating the effect of an animal's
behavior that are acceptable to the individual with a disability (e.g.,
muzzling a dog that barks frequently) that would permit the animal to
travel in the cabin.
While an airline is not required to permit an animal to travel in
the cabin if it engages in disruptive behavior, or other behavior that
poses a direct threat to the health or safety of persons on the
aircraft, airline employees may not make assumptions about how a
([Page 56422]]
particular animal is likely to behave based on past experience with
other animals. Each situation must be considered individually. Airline
employees may inquire, however, about whether a particular animal has
been trained to behave properly in a public setting.
12. Q: Can airlines charge a maintenance or cleaning fee for
customers who bring service animals onto aircraft?
A: No. The ACAA prohibits special charges, such as deposits or
surcharges, for accommodations required to be made to passengers'
disabilities. This is true even if such charges are routinely required
to transport pets.
However, an airline can charge passengers with disabilities if a
service animal causes damage, so long as it is the regular practice of
the airline to charge non -disabled passengers for the same types of
damages. For example, the airline can charge passengers with a
disability for the cost of repairing or cleaning seats damaged by a
service animal if it is the airline's policy to charge when non -
disabled passengers cause similar damage.
13. Q: Are airlines responsible for the animal while a person with
a disability is on the aircraft?
A. No. The care and supervision of a service animal is solely the
responsibility of its owner. The individual with a disability has been
trained in the use of the service animal and is responsible for all
handling of the animal. The airline is not required to provide care or
food or special facilities for the animal.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866. It is a
significant rule under the Department's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. A regulatory evaluation that examines the projected costs
and impacts of the lift requirements in the rule has been placed in the
docket. Briefly, the Department estimates that equipment and
operational costs of the lift requirement (net present value over 20
years ) will range between $18.6 and $51.8 million. In terms of
benefits, the analysis suggests that an additional 450,000 trips to
mobility -impaired travelers could result from the availability of lift
devices, resulting in a net present value profit to carriers of $48
million over 20 years. There are, in addition, non -quantifiable
benefits (e.g., greater travel opportunities for passengers, greater
dignity in the boarding process). The airport accessibility provisions
of the rule are not projected to have significant costs.
We note that Federally -assisted airports have been subject to very
similar requirements under section 504 since the first publication of
49 CFR Part 27 in 1979. Airlines have been subject to very similar
requirements since the first publication of 14 CFR Part 382 in 1990.
New costs related to moving to ADA -based standards should not be great,
and are limited in any case by the readily achievable/program
accessibility provisions made applicable to airlines and airports,
25 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:29
WAIS Document Retrieval http://fiwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
respectively.
The Department certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. There are not a substantial number of small air carriers
covered by this rule, particularly given the exclusion of ''problem
aircraft'' and aircraft with fewer than 19 seats from boarding
assistance requirement. These aircraft are heavily represented among
the smallest air carriers. The smallest airports are excluded from the
boarding assistance rule altogether; other small airports will have
costs reduced by the 4 -year phase-in for them. For all airports,
terminal accessibility requirements are not expected to be costly. They
are very similar to existing requirements, and they include provisions
ensuring that unduly burdensome changes are not required. Consequently,
the Department does not anticipate a significant economic effect on
small airports.
The Department has determined that there would not be sufficient
Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 CFR Part 27
Aviation, Handicapped.
Issued this 8th day of October, 1996, at Washington, D.C.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 14
CFR Part 382 and 49 CFR Part 27 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 382 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and 41712.
2. In 14 CFR Part 382, including the title thereof, the word
''handicap'' is revised to read ''disability'' wherever it occurs. The
term ''handicapped individual'' is revised to read "individual with a
disability'' wherever it occurs. The term "handicapped individuals''
is revised to read ''individuals with a disability'' whenever it
occurs. The term "qualified handicapped individual'' is revised to
read ''qualified individual with a disability" wherever it occurs. The
term "qualified handicapped individuals" is revised to read
qualified individuals with a disability'' wherever it occurs.
3. In 14 CFR Part 382, Sec. 382.23 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 382.23 Airport facilities.
(a) This section applies to all terminal facilities and services
owned, leased, or operated on any basis by an air carrier at a
commercial service airport, including parking and ground transportation
facilities.
(b) Air carriers shall ensure that the terminal facilities and
services subject to this section shall be readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs. Air carriers shall be deemed to comply with this Air
Carrier Access Act obligation if they meet requirements applying to
places of public accommodation under Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
(c) The carrier shall ensure that there is an accessible path
between the gate and the area from which aircraft are boarded.
(d) Systems of inter -terminal transportation, including, but not
limited to, shuttle vehicles and people movers, shall comply with
applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation's ADA rule.
26 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:30
WAfS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
(e) The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAGs), including section 10.4 concerning airport facilities, shall
be the standard for accessibility under this section.
(f) Contracts or leases between carriers and airport operators
concerning the use of airport facilities shall set forth the respective
responsibilities of the parties for the provision of accessible
facilities and services to individuals with disabilities as required by
this part for carriers and applicable section 504 and ADA rules of the
Department of Transportation and Department of Justice for airport
operators.
4. In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 382.39 of 14 CFR Part 382, in the
first sentence thereof, the word ''suitable'' is added before the word
"devices'' and two sentences are added at the end of the paragraph
reading as follows.
Sec. 382.49 Provision of services and equipment.
* * * * *
(a)
[[Page 56423]]
(2) * * * In no case shall carrier personnel be required to hand -
carry a passenger in order to provide boarding assistance (i.e.,
directly to pick up the passenger's body in the arms of one or more
carrier personnel to effect a level change the passenger needs to enter
or leave the aircraft). Requirements for providing boarding assistance
to commuter aircraft with fewer than 30 seats are found in Sec. 382.40.
* * * * *
Sec. 382.39 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 382.39 of 14 CFR Part 382, paragraph (a)(4) is removed.
6. A new Sec. 382.40 is added, to read as follows:
Sec. 382.40 Boarding assistance for small aircraft.
(a) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply to air carriers
conducting passenger operations with aircraft having 19-30 seat
capacity at airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements.
(b) Carriers shall, in cooperation with the airports they serve,
provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities using
mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices that do not require
employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs.
(c) (1) Each carrier shall negotiate in good faith with the airport
operator at each airport concerning the acquisition and use of boarding
assistance devices. The carrier(s) and the airport operator shall, by
no later than September 2, 1997, sign a written agreement allocating
responsibility for meeting the boarding assistance requirements of this
section between or among the parties. The agreement shall be made
available, on request, to representatives of the Department of
Transportation.
(2) The agreement shall provide that all actions necessary to
ensure accessible boarding for passengers with disabilities are
completed as soon as practicable, but no later than December 2, 1998 at
large and medium commercial service hub airports (those with 1,200,000
or more annual enplanements); December 2, 1999 for small commercial
service hub airports (those with between 250,000 and 1,199,999 annual
enplanements); or December 4, 2000 for non -hub commercial service
primary airports (those with between 10,000 and 249,999 annual
enplanements) . All air carriers and airport operators involved are
jointly responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the
27 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:30
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
agreement.
(3) Under the agreement, carriers may require that passengers
wishing to receive boarding assistance requiring the use of a lift for
a flight using a 19-30 seat aircraft check in for the flight one hour
before the scheduled departure time for the flight. If the passenger
checks in after this time, the carrier shall nonetheless provide the
boarding assistance by lift if it can do so by making a reasonable
effort, without delaying the flight.
(4) Boarding assistance under the agreement is not required in the
following situations:
(i) Access to aircraft with a capacity of fewer than 19 or more
than 30 seats;
(ii) Access to float planes;
(iii) Access to the following 19 -seat capacity aircraft models: the
Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 (C and D models);
(iv) Access to any other 19 -seat aircraft model determined by the
Department of Transportation to be unsuitable for boarding assistance
by lift on the basis of a significant risk of serious damage to the
aircraft or the presence of internal barriers that preclude passengers
who use a boarding or aisle chair to reach a non -exit row seat.
(5) When boarding assistance is not required to be provided under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or cannot be provided as required by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for reasons beyond the control
of the parties to the agreement (e.g., because of mechanical problems
with a lift), boarding assistance shall be provided by any available
means to which the passenger consents, except hand -carrying as defined
in Sec. 382.39(a)(2) of this part.
(6) The agreement shall ensure that all lifts and other
accessibility equipment are maintained in proper working condition.
(d)(1) The training of carrier personnel required by Sec. 382.61
shall include, for those personnel involved in providing boarding
assistance, training to proficiency in the use of the boarding
assistance equipment used by the carrier and appropriate boarding
assistance procedures that safeguard the safety and dignity of
passengers.
(2) Carriers who do not operate aircraft with more than a 19 -seat
capacity shall ensure that those personnel involved in providing
boarding assistance are trained to proficiency in the use of the
boarding assistance equipment used by the carrier and appropriate
boarding assistance procedures that safeguard the safety and dignity of
passengers.
7. In Sec. 382.45 of 14 CFR Part 382, paragraph (a)(2) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 382.45 Passenger information.
(a) * * *
(2) Any limitations on the ability of the aircraft to accommodate
qualified individuals with disabilities, including limitations on the
availability of boarding assistance to the aircraft, with respect to
the departure and destination points and any intermediate stops. The
carrier shall provide this information to any passenger who states that
he or she uses a wheelchair for boarding, even if the passenger does
not explicitly request the information.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 382.51 of 14 CFR Part 382, paragraph (b) is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 382.51 Communicable diseases.
(b)(1) The carrier may take the actions listed in paragraph (a) of
this section with respect to an individual who has a communicable
28 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:30
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. g po. gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
disease or infection only if the individual's condition poses a direct
threat to the health or safety of others.
(2) For purposes of this section, a direct threat means a
significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be
eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or
by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.
(3) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to
the health or safety of others, a carrier must make an individualized
assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical
knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain:
the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; that the potential harm
to the health and safety of others will actually occur; and whether
reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will
mitigate the risk.
(4) In taking actions authorized under this paragraph, carriers
shall select the alternative, consistent with the safety and health of
other persons, that is least restrictive from the point of view of the
passenger with the communicable disease. For example, the carrier shall
not refuse to provide transportation to an individual if provision of a
medical certificate or reasonable modifications to practices, policies,
or procedures will mitigate the risk of communication of the disease to
others to an extent that would permit the individual to travel.
(5) If an action authorized under this paragraph results in the
postponement of a passenger's travel, the carrier shall permit the
passenger to travel at a later time (up to 90 days from the date of the
postponed travel) at the fare that would
[[Page 56424]]
have applied to the passenger's originally scheduled trip without
penalty or, at the passenger's discretion, provide a refund for any
unused flights, including return flights.
(6) Upon the passenger's request, the carrier shall provide to the
passenger a written explanation of any action taken under this
paragraph within 10 days of the request.
9. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 27 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 16 (a) and (d) of the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310 (a) and (f); sec. 165(b) of
the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142 nt.)
10. In 49 CFR Part 27, including the title thereof, the word
''handicap'' is revised to read ''disability'' wherever it occurs. The
term ''handicapped individual '' is revised to read ''individual with a
disability'' wherever it occurs. The term ''handicapped individuals ''
is revised to read ''individuals with a disability'' wherever it
occurs. The term "qualified handicapped individuals'' is revised to
read "qualified individuals with a disability'' wherever it occurs.
11. In Sec. 27.5 of 49 CFR Part 27, the definition of ''Air Carrier
Airport'' is removed, and a new definition of ''Commercial Service
Airport'' is added in the appropriate alphabetical placement, to read
as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Definitions.
Commercial service airport means an airport that is defined as a
commercial service airport for purposes of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Airport Improvement Program and that enplanes annually
2500 or more passengers and receives scheduled passenger service of
aircraft.
29 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:30
WAIS Document Retrieval http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAISaction-retrieve ,
12. Section 27.71 of 49 CFR Part 27 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.71 Airport facilities.
(a) This section applies to all terminal facilities and services
owned, leased, or operated on any basis by a recipient of DOT financial
assistance at a commercial service airport, including parking and
ground transportation facilities.
(b) Airport operators shall ensure that the terminal facilities and
services subject to this section shall be readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs. Airport operators shall be deemed to comply with this
section 504 obligation if they meet requirements applying to state and
local government programs and facilities under Department of Justice
(DOJ) regulations implementing Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
(c) The airport shall ensure that there is an accessible path
between the gate and the area from which aircraft are boarded.
(d) Systems of inter -terminal transportation, including, but not
limited to, shuttle vehicles and people movers, shall comply with
applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation's ADA
rules.
(e) The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAGs), including section 10.4 concerning airport facilities, shall
be the standard for accessibility under this section.
(f) Contracts or leases between carriers and airport operators
concerning the use of airport facilities shall set forth the respective
responsibilities of the parties for the provision of accessible
facilities and services to individuals with disabilities as required by
this part and applicable ADA rules of the Department of Transportation
and Department of Justice for airport operators and applicable Air
Carrier Access Act rules (49 CFR part 382) for carriers.
(g) If an airport operator who receives Federal financial
assistance for an existing airport facility has not already done so,
the recipient shall submit a transition plan meeting the requirements
of Sec. 27.65(d) of this part to the FAA no later than March 3, 1997.
13. A new Sec. 27.72 is added to 49 CFR Part 27, to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.72 Boarding assistance for small aircraft.
(a) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply to airports with
10,000 or more annual enplanements.
(b) Airports shall, in cooperation with carriers serving the
airports, provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities
using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other devices that do not require
employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs.
(c)(1) Each airport operator shall negotiate in good faith with
each carrier serving the airport concerning the acquisition and use of
boarding assistance devices. The airport operator and the carrier(s)
shall, by no later than September 2, 1997, sign a written agreement
allocating responsibility for meeting the boarding assistance
requirements of this section between or among the parties. The
agreement shall be made available, on request, to representatives of
the Department of Transportation.
(2) The agreement shall provide that all actions necessary to
ensure accessible boarding for passengers with disabilities are
completed as soon as practicable, but no later than December 2, 1998
rule at large and medium commercial service hub airports (those with
1,200,000 or more annual enplanements); December 2, 1999 rule for small
commercial service hub airports (those with between 250,000 and
1,199,999 annual enplanements); or December 4, 2000 rule for non -hub
30 of 31 02/28/9711:06:30
_4WAIS Document Retrieval
http://frwebgate. access. gpo.gov...13342+2+0+0&WAI Saction=retrieve
commercial service primary airports (those with between 10,000 and
249,999 annual enplanements). All air carriers and airport operators
involved are jointly responsible for the timely and complete
implementation of the agreement.
(3) Boarding assistance under the agreement is not required in the
following situations:
(i) Access to aircraft with a capacity of fewer than 19 or more
than 30 seats;
(ii) Access to float planes;
(iii) Access to the following 19 -seat capacity aircraft models: the
Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 (C and D models);
(iv) Access to any other 19 -seat aircraft model determined by the
Department of Transportation to be unsuitable for boarding assistance
by lift on the basis of a significant risk of serious damage to the
aircraft or the presence of internal barriers that preclude passengers
who use a boarding or aisle chair to reach a non -exit row seat.
(4) When boarding assistance is not required to be provided under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or cannot be provided as required by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for reasons beyond the control
of the parties to the agreement (e.g., because of mechanical problems
with a lift), boarding assistance shall be provided by any available
means to which the passenger consents, except hand -carrying as defined
in Sec. 382.39(a)(2) of this part.
(5) The agreement shall ensure that all lifts and other
accessibility equipment are maintained in proper working condition.
(d) In the event that airport personnel are involved in providing
boarding assistance, the airport shall ensure that they are trained to
proficiency in the use of the boarding assistance equipment used at the
airport and appropriate boarding assistance procedures that safeguard
the safety and dignity of passengers.
14. A new Sec. 27.77 is added to 49 CFR Part 27, to read as
follows:
[[Page 56425]]
Sec. 27.77 Recipients of Essential Air Service subsidies.
Any air carrier receiving Federal financial assistance from the
Department of Transportation under the Essential Air Service program
shall, as a condition of receiving such assistance, comply with
applicable requirements of this part and applicable section 504 and
ACAA rules of the Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-28084 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
31 of 31 02/28/97 11:06:31
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56409
including a digital Electronic Flight
Instrument System (EFIS), attitude and
heading reference systems (AHRS), and
air data systems (ADS). These systems
may be vulnerable to high-intensity
radiated fields (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 DHC -8-400, which require that
new technology electrical and electronic
systems, such as the EFIS, AHRS and
ADS, 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
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 cockpit -
installed equipment through the cockpit
window apertures is undefined. Based
on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF
emitters, and 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
Peak
(VIM)
Ave e
(V/
10
10 KHz-100 KHz ......
50
50
110 KHz-500 KHz ....
60
60
500 KHz-2000 KHz
70
70
2 MHz -30 MHz .........
200
200
30 MHz -100 MHz .....
30
30
100 MHz -200 MHz ...
150
33
200 MHz -400 MHz ...
70
70
400 MHz -700 MHz ...
4,020
935
700 MHz -1000 MHz
1,700
170
1 GHz -2 GHz ...........
5,000
990
2 GHz -4 GHz ...........
6,680
840
4 GHz -6 GHz ...........
6,850
310
6 GHz -8 GHz ...........
3,600
670
8 GHz -12 GHz .........
3,500
1,270
12 GHz -18 GHz .......
3,500
360
18 GHz -40 GHz .......
2,100
750
As discussed above, these special
conditions are applicable initially to the
DHC -8"00 airplane. Should de
Havilland apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include
another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the
special conditions would apply to that
model as well, under the provisions of
§ 21.101(a)(1). I
Discussion of Comments
Notice of proposed special conditi(
No. SC -96 -3 -NM was published in t
Federal Register on July 22, 1996 (61
37844). No comments were received.
Conclusion
This action affects certain design
features only on the DHC -8-400
airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the
manufacturer who applied to the FAA
for approval of these features on the
airplane.
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 the deHavilland
DHC -8-400 series airplanes.
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.
2. For the purpose of this special
condition, the following definition
applies:
Critical Functions. Function's 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 October
15, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
ANM-100.
[FR Doc. 96-28107 Filed 10-31-96-.8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-134A
of the Secretary
CFR Part 382
49 CFA Part 27
[Docket 46872 and 45657—Amendment x61
RIN 2105-AB62
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Handicap in Programs and Activities
Receiving or Benefiting From Federal-
Financiai Assistance;
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Handicap in Air Travel
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule. /
SUMMARY: The Department is amending
its rules implementing section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986
concerning the provision of equipment
to facilitate the boarding by individuals
with disabilities on small commuter
aircraft. The rule requires air carriers
and airports to work jointly to make lifts
or other boarding devices available. The
rule also harmonizes requirements
relating to airport facilities in the
Department's section 504 and Air
Carrier Access Act regulations and
clarifies provisions concerning
communicable diseases.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective
December 2. 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
C',eneral Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement. Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street. S.W..
Room 10424, Washington, D.C.. 20590.
(202) 366-9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687
(TDD); or Nancy Ebersole. Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, same street address. Room 9217,
(202)366-4864.
56410 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Boarding Assistance
Background
In the Department's regulation
implementing section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which went
into effect in 1979, the Department
requires Federally -assisted airports to
play a role in boarding assistance for
individuals with disabilities:
Each operator at an airport receiving any
Federal financial assistance shall assure that
adequate assistance is provided for enplaning
and, deplaning handicapped persons.
Boarding by level entry boarding platforms
and by passenger lounges are the preferred
methods for movement of handicapped
persons between terminal buildings and
aircraft at air carrier airports; however, where
this is not practicable, operators at air carrier
airport terminals shall assure that there are
lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices not
normally used for freight that are available
for enplaning and deplaning handicapped
passengers. (49 CFR 27.71(a)(2)(v)).
This provision does not necessarily
require that an airport acquire its own
lifts or other devices. Airports may
comply if other parties at the airport
(e.g., air carriers) have devices that can
be used for this purpose.
Airlines' boarding assistance
responsibilities are discussed in the
Department's Air Carrier Access Act
(ACAA) regulations. In 1990, when the
Department published its ACAA rule
(14 CFR Part 382), the Department knew
that the rule did not address completely
the issue of boarding assistance for
individuals with disabilities—
particularly those with mobility
impairments—on some small commuter
aircraft. Section 382.49(a) requires
carriers to provide boarding assistance,
including, "as needed, the services (of]
personnel and the use of ground
wheelchairs, boarding wheelchairs, on-
board wheelchairs .. . and ramps or
mechanical lifts." Where level entry
boarding platforms are not available,
"carriers shall use ramps, lifts, or other
devices (not normally used for freight)
for enplaning and deplaning
handicapped individuals who need
them" (§ 382.39(a)(2)). However, the
rule provides a partial exception to the
boarding assistance requirement:
In the event that the physical limitations of
an aircraft with less than 30 passenger seats
preclude the use of existing models of lifts,
boarding chairs, or other feasible devices to
enplane a handicapped person, carrier
personnel are not required to carry the
handicapped person onto the aircraft by
hand. (§ 382.39(a)(4)).
The effect of this provision is that if
there is no existing model of lift,
boarding chair, or other device that will
work with a particular aircraft having
fewer than 30 seats, so that hand -
carrying (i.e., having airline personnel
physically pick up a passenger in their
arms and carry the passenger on board)
is the only means by which the
passenger can board the aircraft, the
carrier is not required to provide
boarding assistance. The rationale for
not requiring hand -carrying is sound:
hand -carrying involves significant risks
of injury to both airline personnel and
passengers, and it is an undignified way
of providing assistance. Moreover, in
some models of aircraft, the stairs that
are built into the door of the aircraft are
not strong enough to accommodate two
or three persons at a time, as either
hand -carrying or the use of a boarding
chair would require. The result of this
exception, however, is that airlines may
legally deny boarding to persons with
mobility impairments in some
situations. (For discussion of this
provision and its background, see 55 FR
8033-8034; March 6, 1990.)
In an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) issued at the same
time as the Department's Air Carrier
Access Act rule (55 FR 8078; March 6,
1990), the Department asked for
additional information and comment on
the subject of lift devices for small
commuter aircraft. In the ANPRM, the
Department noted that, in 1990, the
development of lift devices appeared
not to have proceeded to the point
where imposing requirements for them
through regulation would have been
justified. We received little information
in response to this ANPRM.
Subsequently, the Department learned
that a number of manufacturers had
developed and were attempting to
market lift devices for small aircraft (at
that time for prices in the $8,000–
$10,000 range), and that some airlines
had tested models of these lifts in a
variety of operational conditions.
In June 1992, the Department held a
workshop of parties interested in this
issue, including representatives of
commuter airlines, disability groups,
and lift and aircraft manufacturers. The
Department heard presentations from
lift manufacturers concerning their
devices and from some air carriers that
had tested various devices with their
aircraft. Department staff also conducted
informal surveys of carriers that tested
the lifts to determine how well carrier
personnel believed the devices had
worked with different types of
commuter aircraft. From this
information, it appeared to the
Department that there were available
several lift devices that can effectively
facilitate boarding assistance for persons
with mobility impairments on most
small commuter aircraft in the 19-30
seat capacity range.
At the same time, none of the
participants in the workshop appeared
to suggest that the existing lift devices
were designed to work, or could work,
with some of the smallest aircraft (e.g.,
those under 19 passenger seats). Carriers
also raised significant concerns about
the compatibility of the lift devices with
certain existing aircraft models in the
19-30 seat class. For example, while
lifts could be extended to the door of the
Fairchild Metro and Beech 1900 models,
there would be less than a foot clearance
between the lift and the propeller
assembly, creating a risk of costly
damage (e.g., one estimate was
$250,000) to the aircraft, as well as the
loss of passenger revenue for the two
months the aircraft might spend in the
shop. Some carrier participants also
expressed concerns that, once a lift got
a passenger to the aircraft door, it would
be difficult or impossible in some
models (e.g., the Jetstream, Metro and
Beech 1900) to transfer the passenger
via a 12 -inch -wide boarding chair into
the aisle and to a seat in the aircraft
(e.g., because of narrow and very limited
maneuvering room in some aircraft
cabins).
One of the most important
discussions at the workshop concerned
the allocation of responsibility for
obtaining and operating lifts. Generally,
commuter carriers and airport operators
each believed that the other should bear
the primary responsibility and cost for
ensuring accessibility to small
commuter aircraft. For example, the
Regional Airline Association (RAA)
representatives at the June 1992
workshop asserted that their efforts to
interest airports in sharing the cost of
lift devices had generated little
response. Carriers cited what they
viewed as the greater financial resources
of airports (e.g., airports could apply for
FAA Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funds or passenger facility charge.
(PFC) revenues to help fund lifts);
airports cited the traditional control of
carriers over passenger boarding. Both
were wary of potentially increased
liability exposure from using lift devices
to board passengers with disabilities,
and they urged FAA to issue
performance specifications for lifts.
Disability group representatives were
concerned that, in the absence of
regulatory direction from the
Department, there would be an impasse
that would postpone unreasonably
passengers' ability to use small
commuter aircraft. Lift manufacturers
were concerned that lengthy delays in
resolving issues in this area could
00
ur•
m
ac
re
li.
5:
N
D
tl�
Sed
�es
)rk,
'•g•,
rriers
,Ut
with
ae
e
A the
Aels,
-ante
he
he
;ot
)uld
d
r
to
ited
ed
ily,
ors
ear
,es
or
es
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56411
undermine the fragile, but developing,
market for their products.
In February 1993, the FAA issued an
advisory circular concerning
recommended specifications for such
lifts. (FAA Advisory Circular 150/
5200XX—"Guide Specification For
Mobility Impaired Passenger Boarding
Devices"). Subsequently, we learned
that many lift models had been
modified by their manufacturers to meet
the FAA specifications.
The NPRM
In September 1993, the Department
published an NPRM proposing that
airlines and airports, working together,
would obtain lift equipment needed to
provide boarding assistance to small
commuter aircraft. The rationale for this
proposal was that the Department views
airports and carriers as key parts of an
inextricably intertwined air
transportation system. No one can fly
between Point A and Point B without
using at least one carrier and at least
two airports. To complete a trip, every
passenger must be able to travel to the
first airport, move through the first
airport (including ticketing, baggage
checking, and check-in, where
necessary), use the interface provided
by some combination of the airport and
the carrier to enter the aircraft, get to his
or her seat on the aircraft, fly to the
second airport, and reverse the process
at that end of the trip. What matters,
from the passenger's point of view, is
not which participant in the system is
responsible for each part of the process,
but that the entire process operates so
that the passenger can successfully
complete the trip.
The air travel system would never
work for anyone unless airports and
carriers worked together to get
passengers from their place of origin to
their destination. This is as true for
passengers with disabilities as for
anyone else. From the Department's
point of view, airports and carriers have
the responsibility of working together to
ensure that passengers with disabilities
can use commuter air service, which has
become an increasingly important part
of the air transportation system.
Consequently, the Department proposed
to amend both its Air Carrier Access Act
regulations (which apply to carriers)
and its section 504 regulations (which
apply primarily to airports) to establish
the joint responsibility of both carriers
and airports to ensure that passengers
with disabilities have the opportunity to
use commuter air service.
The NPRM proposed to create
identical requirements in the ACAA and
section 504 rules, directing each
Federal -aid commercial service airport
and each carrier serving that airport to
establish a written agreement that
would provide for ensuring that lifts,
ramps, or other suitable devices would
be provided and used to ensure that
passengers could enter and leave small
commuter aircraft.
The written agreement between
carriers and airports, which would not
have to be submitted to DOT but which
would be kept on file for DOT
inspection, would have to be completed
within nine months of the effective date
of the rule. The agreement would call
for full implementation of accessibility
to small commuter aircraft at the airport
no later than three years from the
effective date of the rule. The proposed
phase-in period was intended to permit
an orderly acquisition process for
equipment and to avoid increasing costs
through a too -abrupt startup
requirement. The NPRM also included a
provision allowing carriers to seek a
waiver from the requirement to use a lift
or other device with a particular type of
aircraft on the basis that use of the
device would present an unacceptable
risk of significant damage to the aircraft.
The NPRM asked for comment on
whether there should be an exception or
waiver provided from the boarding
assistance requirement when aircraft
design limitations would prevent a
passenger with a disability from getting
to a non -exit row seat after the
individual has entered the aircraft door.
Comments and DOT Responses
1. Responsibility for Obtaining Lifts
It was apparent from comments that
airlines and airports continued to
disagree over who should be responsible
for providing lift devices. Four airports
and an airport association said that
airlines are traditionally responsible for
assisting passenger boarding and for
obtaining equipment used for this
purpose. It is inappropriate to involve
the airport in this activity, since it is
airlines that work with aircraft
manufacturers on design issues, one of
these commenters said. Another
suggested that it would violate
nondiscrimination provisions of 14 CFR
Part 152 for an airport to participate in
obtaining lifts that some, but not all,
carriers might use. Another remarked
that even if airports participated in the
funding of lifts, airlines should be
responsible for operations and
maintenance. Airports, carriers, and
their associations commented that
insufficient airport improvement
program (AIP) funding may be available
for lifts. especially at smaller airports, or
that the priority assigned lifts for such
funding was too low.
Airline associations, on the other
hand, said that since airports could use
AIP and passenger facility charge (PFC)
funds for the purpose of paying for lifts,
airports should pay for them. This was
also true, they said, because•the
requirement for lifts was a matter of
public policy that should be paid for by
the public. One airline association and
three other commenters suggested that
DOT should subsidize lift purchases
(one suggesting that not to do so
constituted an "unfunded mandate"),
apparently beyond the level provided in
the AIP program.
There was also considerable
discussion in comments of how the
proposed joint responsibility between
carriers and airports might work. One
disability group urged that the carrier -
airport agreements have sufficient
specificity to define how lifts would be
shared and used. Carriers and their
organizations said that carriers should
control use of the lifts, and
recommended advance notice
requirements of 24 or 48 hours to avoid
conflicting demands for lift use.
An airport asked that there be a "good
faith" exception to the requirement to
negotiate a joint agreement, so that if a
party has negotiated in good faith it
would not be sanctioned for failing to
come to an agreement. Other
commenters expressed doubts about the
negotiation process. An airport doubted
that airlines would even show up for the
negotiation, while an airline association
thought that airports are in a superior
bargaining position and do not want to
use AIP funds to benefit disabled
passengers. A state agency asked how
DOT would enforce the requirement to
negotiate an agreement, while a lift
manufacturer thought the regulation
should include more detail on what
items should be in the agreement.
Two commenters suggested that the
rules could be different for different -
sized airports (e.g., airports get lifts for
small airports, airlines at large airports,
and a 50/50 split at medium airports).
Some airports, carriers, and their
organizations suggested waiving the
requirement at small airports (e.g., at
which there were less than a threshold
number of enplanements) or where
there was an airport a disabled
passenger could use within 50 miles,
since this is within normal travel
distance to airports for many
passengers. Moreover, these comments
said, many smaller airports receive
small amounts of AIP funds, a fact that
stretching out the compliance date
would not change. Airports and carrier
were also concerned that since few lift
passengers would be expected at small
airports, requiring lifts may not be cost
56412 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
effective. A larger number of comments,
however, mostly from disability
community commenters and lift
manufacturers, opposed a small airport
waiver, saying that a more sensible
approach to reduce burdens on small
airports would be to grant an extended
compliance period for them, provide
higher AEP priority for this purpose, or
allow the use of boarding chairs at such
places.
DOT Response
Who is responsible? Who pays? The
Department does not believe that there
is a good conceptual or practical
alternative to requiring, as proposed in
the NPRM, that carriers and airports
share the responsibility and cost for
ensuring the accessibility of the
commuter air transportation system. As
discussed above, the air travel system,
from the point of view of passengers
with disabilities, is an integrated whole
in which airports, boarding systems,
and aircraft must all be accessible for
travel to be possible. Carrier and airport
commenters each discussed, in some
detail, why they shouldn't be
responsible and why the other party
should. The intractable fact remains
that, absent contribution and
cooperation from both parties,
accessibility will not happen. In the
context of a nondiscrimination statute,
that result is unacceptable.
The Department points out that AIP
and, in some cases, PFC funds are
options that can assist in the purchase
of lifts. It is not persuasive to assert that
AIP funds are not available for this
purpose because of other, purportedly
higher priority, demands on the funds.
Compliance with ACAA and 504
requirements—which means assuring
that passengers with disabilities can
move through terminals and onto
aircraft—is no less important than
carrying out other projects to improve
airport services and facilities for all
passengers. When it enacted the ACAA
and 504, Congress implicitly
determined that access for passengers is
just as high a priority as access for
everyone else. At the same time, given
the intertwined nature of the air
transportation system, it is reasonable to
expect carriers to make a significant
contribution to accessibility as well.
The Department is aware that airports
and carriers disagree on a considerable
number of issues. However, ongoing
working relationships exist and will
continue in the future. Airports and
carriers must work together and find
ways of agreeing on a wide variety of
matters for the air transportation system
to work. Consequently, the concept of
airports and carriers negotiating to
determine how accessibility will be
provided is not something new and
foreign. It is also far more consistent
with the Administration's regulatory
policy of avoiding dictating national,
one -size -fits -all, solutions to issues that
are better decided locally by the parties
concerned.
The requirement to negotiate an
agreement, like other parts of these
rules, is enforced through existing
mechanisms. For example, if an airline
failed to comply with its obligations, the
enforcement procedures of 14 CFR
§ 382.65(c) and (d) would apply. If an
airport failed to comply, the procedures .
of 49 CFR Part 27, Subpart C. would
apply.
The Department has paid close
attention to the costs of boarding
assistance requirements, which are
described in the regulatory evaluation
placed in the docket for the rulemaking.
In particular, we would note that at least
one lift model is available in the
$15,000 range. In order to mitigate these
costs, the Department is taking two
principal steps. First, those commercial
service airports with 2500-10,000
annual enplanements are exempt from
the boarding assistance requirement.
These airports account for only about 1
percent of all enplanements, so the
exemption should not significantly
damage the accessibility of the air travel
system to the vast majority of passengers
with disabilities. If boarding assistance
equipment and services exist at such an
airport, however, they would have to be
made available to consenting passengers
(except for hand -carrying, which is not
required to be used). This is not a
requirement to provide such equipment
and services where they do not already
exist; it is an "if you have it, use it"
requirement. Second, the Department
will phase in boarding assistance
requirements depending on the size of
the airport. This point is discussed
below under the "Time Frames"
heading.
It is important that boarding
assistance equipment be maintained
properly, so that it is available for use
by passengers who need it. Consistent
with provisions of existing ADA
regulations, the rules will require
carriers and airports to maintain this
equipment in proper working order.
2. Aircraft -Related Issues
The NPRM recognized that lifts may
not work well with all models of
commuter aircraft, and asked whether
waivers or exceptions for specific
aircraft types that could be damaged by
lifts was appropriate. Disability
community commenters and lift
manufacturers generally opposed this
idea. A manufacturer said its product is
compatible with all aircraft in the 19-
30 seat range and that any compatibility
problems could be worked out between
the carrier and the manufacturer.
Another manufacturer said it made
"adapters" that would make its lifts
usable with various aircraft models that
otherwise could be damaged, such as
the Fairchild Metro and Jetstream 31.
(DOT staff contacted the manufacturer,
learning that it had a design for the
adapter but had not built a prototype.
The manufacturer estimated that if it
built the adapter, it would add about
$3000 to the $56,000 price of its lift.)
Other commenters made quite a
different point—that in some operating
conditions, such as boarding a seaplane
from a floating platform or in severe
winter weather in Alaska, it was
doubtful that use of lifts would be
feasible.
Carriers and their organizations
requested exemptions for the Fairchild
Metro and Beech 1900 models because
of the potential damage problem. Also,
airports, carriers, and their
organizations sought exemptions for
small airports and carriers with one -
employee operations. The latter request
was made on the basis that it can take
two persons to provide boarding
assistance to some passengers and extra
personnel might have to be brought in
toprovide the assistance.
One disability group said that
inexpensive modifications can be made
to lifts to make them work with most
aircraft. This commenter said that
carriers should have a burden of proof
to demonstrate that an aircraft cannot be
accessed without violating established
safety standards before a waiver would
be warranted. Other commenters
suggested that, on 24-hour notice, an
alternative means of compliance should
be provided (e.g., substituting a different
aircraft), or that airports should have
enough different sorts of lifts to service
all aircraft that stop there.
About ten comments from carriers
said that there were problems with some
aircraft even if a lift could get a
wheelchair -using passenger to the
aircraft door. For example, turning
radius limits, aisle widths of 12-14
inches, or other constraints or
obstruction problems may make it
difficult, particularly for large, heavy, or
significantly mobility -impaired
passengers, to proceed to a seat, or at
least to a seat in which the passenger
could sit consistent with the FAA's exit
row seating rule. (Some disability
community Comments recommended
modifying the exit row rule in small
aircraft to avoid this latter problem.)
Carrier comments suggested that
is
•iity
!en
hat
zg
me
,st
ra
I
1e
be
i
i
id
int
ne
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56413
boarding assistance should be waived
for these aircraft , since it would be a
futile exercise. (Waiver requests went
primarily to the Fairchild Metro, the
Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 C and
D, both on this ground and/or on the
ground of potential aircraft damage.) In
addition, carriers and some lift
manufacturers said there should be an
exception to the boarding assistance
requirement for situations in which a
passenger's size, weight, or lack of
upper body strength made it
impracticable to assist him or her
through a low cabin doorway to a seat
without risking injury to the passenger
or carrier personnel. They also said
there are no flight attendants on 19 -seat
aircraft to assist passengers with
disabilities and insufficient ground crew
to assist at many non -hub airports. One
disability community commenter
pointed out, however, that some
individuals who cannot climb steps—
and therefore need a lift to get into the
aircraft --can walk a few steps and
therefore proceed to a seat in these
aircraft.
DOT Response
From comments and from its own
review of various aircraft, the
Department is aware of certain
"problem aircraft" with which existing
models of lifts do not work well. For
instance, float planes, which land on
water and often pick up passengers from
docks or floating platforms, appear to be
incompatible with lift use. The final
rule will not require boarding assistance
for float planes.
The Department is aware that there
are locations in which inclement
weather can sometimes make aircraft
operations difficult. The Department
does not believe that it is advisable to
waive boarding assistance requirements
in such places, however. Even airports
that face difficult climate conditions
enjoy substantial periods in which
weather does not preclude aircraft or lift
operations. It makes sense to require
accessibility for those times.
Consequently, while the Department
does not intend the rule to require the
operation of boarding assistance
equipment when it would be unsafe due
to bad weather, the rule will apply to
airports in all parts of the country. We
do not anticipate that this will be an
overwhelming problem at most times
and places. Weather that is sufficiently
bad to preclude boarding assistance but
not bad enough to preclude aircraft
operations is not likely to occur on such
a large percentage of days as would
make a boarding assistance requirement
futile. When weather is bad enough to
preclude aircraft operations, the
problem is obviously moot.
The Department is persuaded that it is
not reasonable to impose boarding
assistance requirements with respect to
aircraft models in which a lift would
create a significant risk of damage to the
aircraft (e.g., by coming within less than
a foot of the propeller assembly) or in
which the internal configuration of the
aircraft effectively precludes a passenger
using a boarding or aisle chair from
getting to a non -exit row seat. To the
Department's knowledge, the following
are the only aircraft models that would
be exempt from boarding assistance
requirements on this basis:
• Fairchild Metro—The major problem
with accessing this aircraft via a lift is a
propeller assembly that juts out almost on
line with the passenger entrance door. Even
if a lift is able to access the door at an angle,
there would be only 4-11 inches of space
between the lift and the propeller assembly.
This presents a high risk of costly damage to
the aircraft (e.g., according to carriers, up to
an estimated $250.000 plus lost revenue from
the approximately two months of repair time)
if lifts are deployed with only slight
imprecision. In addition, the four foot -high
doorway, 12 -inch aisle, and high platform on
which seats are located present nearly
insurmountable barriers to access for non-
ambulatory passengers to non -exit row seats.
• Jetstream 31—Some lifts cannot access
this aircraft because of a curvature of the
aircraft doorsill that prevents lifts from
interfacing with the aircraft door without
damaging the aircraft. Other lifts can
interface with the aircraft: however, the low
door makes passenger boarding from the lift
a very awkward procedure (e.g., a passenger
may have to be tilted backward to a nearly
supine position to enter the aircraft). The
more serious problem, however. is enabling
a passenger to get from the aircraft door to
a non -exit row seat. To get to the aircraft aisle
from the door requires a passenger in a
boarding chair to make a 45 -degree turn in
the aisle (which is possible only for a
passenger with a 12.5 inch width or less).
This aircraft has a 13 -inch aisle, but seats
overhang the aisle, making it impossible for
even a 12 -inch wide boarding aisle to access
more than one non -exit row seat. If a
passenger is able to get to this seat. the
passenger must have good upper body
strength and the help of two carrier
personnel to be transferred from the chair
and lifted over the back of the seat.
• Beach 1900 (C and D models}—A cabin
configuration similar to that of the jetstream
31 presents very significant barriers to
providing access to non -exit row seats for
non-ambulatory passengers. The four -foot
high aircraft door makes it necessary to tilt
a boarding chair to a nearly supine position,
with the carrier personnel assisting the
boarding having to bend over while
maneuvering the chair through the door. A
12 -inch chair cannot fit down the aircraft
aisle, and does not allow the maneuvering
room necessary for an independent transfer.
Passengers must have good upper body
strength and assistance from two carrier
personnel to rotate and swing their bodies
into a seat located behind the chair (or must
crawl down the aisle to a seat).
The rule includes exceptions from
boarding assistance requirements for
these three aircraft models. If there are
other aircraft that have similar
difficulties, the rule gives the
Department of Transportation discretion
to add to the list. It should be
emphasized that air carriers are not
authorized to exempt other aircraft from
boarding assistance services on their
own initiative.
It should be noted that there may be
situations in which the ability of a
passenger to use a boarding chair to get
to a non -exit row seat may vary with the
passenger's size and weight. For
example, a very large. heavy passenger
may not be able to fit into the boarding
chairs used on narrow -aisle commuter
aircraft, or may not be able to walk
through a narrow aisle to a seat, while
a smaller passenger does not have the
same problem. If, for this reason, the
passenger cannot get to a seat he or she
can use, providing boarding assistance
is a futile gesture that the carrier is not
required to make. On the other hand, a
passenger who cannot climb steps—and
therefore needs a lift to board—may be
able to walk a few steps to a seat. In
such a situation, providing boarding
assistance is not a futile gesture, and the
rule requires carriers to provide it. If a
passenger with a disability asserts that
he or she can walk the needed distance
from the aircraft door to a non -exit row
seat, the carrier must provide the
boarding assistance and allow the
passenger to attempt to reach the seat.
Passengers who use lifts to access
commuter aircraft need to know, in
advance, whether lift service is
available. Passengers are unlikely to be
aware which aircraft model their flight
will use. Consequently, the Department
is amending the information section of
the ACAA rule to direct carriers to tell
passengers who request the information
or who note that they use a wheelchair
for boarding whether the aircraft model
scheduled to be used for a particular
flight is one on which boarding
assistance is available. This information
would include notice of the availability
of boarding assistance at boarding,
departure, and intermediate points. In
addition, carriers should make such
information routinely available on all
media through which they make
information available to the general
public (e.g., 800 numbers, reservation
systems, published schedules). The
Department emphasizes the critical
need for this information to be conveyed
accurately and promptly, because, in its
56414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
absence, the travel plans of individuals
with disabilities are likely to be
disrupted. Airlines and their agents
must ensure that this function is
performed. Like other violations of the
Air Carrier Access Act, failure to
comply with this information provision
can subject regulated parties to
enforcement action, including civil .
penalties.
Consideration of issues concerning
aircraft design for accessibility is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
We note, however, that some older
models of commuter aircraft that
present some of these problems appear
to be gradually being phased out of the
commuter fleet. The 1996 FAA
commuter safety standards are likely to
accelerate the elimination of some older
19 -seat models from the fleet. The exit
row rule is part of an FAA safety rule
separate from Part 382. Consideration of
changes in that rule related to seat
availability in small commuter aircraft
are also beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
The Department does not believe,
given the way aircraft are used and
scheduled by carriers, that it would be
practicable to require more accessible
models of aircraft to be designated or
substituted for flights that passengers
with disabilities want to use, even on
advance notice.
3. Boarding Assistance Methods
The NPRM proposed that boarding
assistance should be provided using
"suitable devices (not normally used for
freight)" but that "hand -carrying" (i.e.,
picking up a passenger's body in the
arms of airline personnel) would never
be required. There was general
agreement among commenters that
hand -carrying was a bad idea, for both
safety and dignity reasons. Some
disability community commenters did
say, however, that it should be
permitted in an emergency or when a
lift was not available or inoperative, at
least with the consent of the passenger.
The NPRM, like the present rule, did
not exclude boarding chairs, used to
carry passengers up airstairs, from the
scope of "suitable devices" that could
be used to provide boarding assistance.
It did ask for comment on whether the
use of boarding chairs was appropriate
for this purpose. Several commenters
(including lift manufacturers, disability
community commenters, and an airline)
said that boarding chairs should be used
for this purpose only when a lift is
inoperable or when there is an
emergency. For most disability
community commenters, using a
boarding chair in this way is tantamount
to hand -carrying and therefore strongly
disfavored. (One commenter noted that
the use of boarding chairs for vertical
access, which it regarded as
objectionable, should be distinguished
from the use of aisle or transfer chairs
on board the lift or aircraft, which are
needed to assist many passengers to
their seats.) On the other hand, many
other commenters (including airlines
and their groups, airports, and one
disability group) advocated permitting
the continued use of boarding chairs
when it was more cost-effective to do so
(e.g.. at an airport with few
enplanements), when it would avoid
delay (e.g., when an airport's lift was
being used elsewhere), or when a lift
was broken. These commenters said
allowing the use of boarding chairs in at
least some situations would provide
greater flexibility to all concerned.
DOT Response
The main point of this regulation is to
ensure that, in as many situations as
possible, passengers with disabilities be
able to travel by air, with safety and
dignity. Having airline personnel carry
a passenger up stairs in a boarding chair
increases risk of injury both to
passengers and airline personnel, and it
can often be an undignified and
frightening experience for passengers.
Consequently, the rule does not permit
this practice.
This does not mean that boarding
chairs and/or aisle chairs cannot be
used in the boarding assistance process.
Indeed, their use is necessary to get the
passenger to a seat from a lift. Nor does
it mean that carrier personnel are
relieved of their obligation, as part of
the boarding assistance process, to assist
passengers in transferring from their
own wheelchair to a boarding or aisle
chair, and then from that device to an
aircraft seat. It just means that, under
normal circumstances on 19-30 seat
aircraft, carrier personnel may not lift
passengers in boarding chairs up stairs
as the means of effecting the level
change needed for boarding. Boarding
stairs are not "suitable devices" for this
purpose on 19-30 seat aircraft.
In abnormal circumstances (e.g., if a
lift breaks down and needs to be
repaired) or with respect to aircraft that
are exempt from the boarding assistance
requirement, the carrier would use
whatever means are available (including
boarding chairs but not hand -carrying)
to provide boarding assistance. The use
of alternative means is conditioned on
the passenger's consent. This is not a
requirement to create a means of
boarding assistance where none exists
or is feasible. It simply means that if a
practicable alternative means of
providing assistance in fact exists in a
particular situation, carriers are to use
it. In an emergency evacuation situation,
the carrier would obviously do whatever
is needed to deal with the emergency,
regardless of other considerations.
There is apparent unanimity that
hand -carrying (in the sense of bodily
picking up a passenger for purposes of
a level change, as distinct from
providing assistance using a boarding or
aisle chair or assisting in the transfer of
a passenger) is a bad idea. The final rule
specifically provides that this practice is
never required (other than when
necessary for an emergency evacuation).
The Department notes that the
requirements of this amendment
concern boarding assistance only for
19-30 seat commuter aircraft. The
existing provisions of Part 382
concerning boarding assistance for
larger aircraft (see § 382.39(a) (1)-(3))
remain in effect, without change. Under
these requirements, airlines may carry
passengers up airstairs in boarding
chairs. Airstairs used with larger aircraft
are more likely to have sufficient
weight-bearing capacity for this type of
boarding assistance, and many of the lift
models designed for 19-30 seat aircraft
do not work with larger aircraft. While
the Department believes that use of lifts
for boarding is preferable for larger as
well as smaller aircraft, changes in the
methods of boarding assistance used for
the larger aircraft are outside the scope
of this rulemaking.
4. Time Frames
The NPRM contained two time
frames. First, it proposed 9 months from
the effective date of the rule for carriers
and airports to complete agreements to
provide lifts. Second, it proposed 3
years from the effective date of the rule
as the implementation date for lift
service under the agreements.
With respect to the time period for the
agreements, airline associations, airlines
and some airports suggested a year,
principally because they believed it
would take that time to work out the
multiple agreements necessary under
the NPRM. Lift manufacturers and
disability groups, on the other hand,
favored shorter time frames (e.g., 2-6
months), principally because many
years have passed since the ACAA
regulations have been in place, lifts
have been available for some time,
further delay would work a financial
hardship on manufacturers, and airlines
and airports have had a long time to
prepare to provide boarding assistance.
Given the accessibility needs of
passengers, these commenters did not
believe that a longer negotiation period
was warranted. An airport association,
se
:tion.
:tever
cy,
's of
.ng or
"er of
1 rule
.ce is
tion).
or
3))
rider
uTy
rcraft
)e of
ie lift
:raft
file
lifts
is
he
d for
ope
from
iers
S to
ule
;r the
fines
3r
:nes
ice.
od
-.I,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56415
an airport, and an airline favored the
proposed 9-monthperiod.
There was a similar variety of views
with respect to the implementation date
for the agreements. Disability groups
and equipment manufacturers favored a
1 or 1'/2 -year implementation period,
rather than the three-year period
proposed in the NPRM, but supported
extensions of up to five years for small
airports, as opposed to waivers. These
commenters said that lifts are available,
that airports and airlines have had a
long time to prepare to provide boarding
assistance, and that equipment costs
were small compared to other costs
regularly incurred by airlines and
airports. One disability group said that
boarding chairs should be required to
provide access immediately.
On the other hand, an airline
association and some state and local
transportation agencies favored the
proposed 3 -year period. Many of these
commenters added that the rule should
be flexible, with provisions for granting
relief from the deadline if factors such
as funding delays or the inability of
manufacturers to meet demand
prevented parties from complying on
time. One airline association said the 3 -
year period should start to run from the
date of the agreement, rather than the
effective date of the rule, because
manufacturers would not be able to
meet the demand otherwise.
Two disability agencies said that
implementation should be required as
soon as practicable, with three years
being the outside limit. Two
commenters, an airline and an
individual, favored a two-year period.
Two lift manufacturers suggested a
staggered implementation schedule,
with 12-15 months for larger airports,
two years for medium-size airports, and
three years for small airports. They
expressed the concern that, absent such
a schedule, acquisition of lifts would be
back-loaded at the end of the
implementation period.
DOT Response
The Department's task is to find a
good balance between the need to
implement accessibility as soon as
possible and the need to give parties a
reasonable amount of time to do the
work needed to accomplish this
objective. With respect to the time to
conclude agreements, the Department
believes that the NPRM proposal of 9
months is a good middle ground
between these two considerations, as
well as between the concerns expressed
by different groups of commenters.
With respect to implementation time.
the Department will require the
agreements to be carried out as soon as
practicable, as is the typical practice in
disability regulations requiring
modifications to facilities or practices
(e.g., program accessibility changes
required under the Department of
Justice ADA Title II regulation). The
maximum time for implementation will
be two years for large and medium hubs
(1.2 million or more annual
enplanements), three years for small
hubs (250,000-1.2 million annual
enplanements), and four years for non -
hub primary airports (10,000-250,000
annual enplanements). This phase-in
will result in accessibility at the airports
carrying the greatest number of
passengers sooner (hubs handle 97-98
percent of total enplanements), while
reducing costs and burdens at the
smaller airports. Again, these time
frames represent what the Department
believes to be a good balance among the
policy considerations and commenter
concerns involved.
5. Other issues
The NPRM raised the question of
whether use of lifts would create
schedule disruptions or delays,
particularly when multiple demands on
lift use might be made. Commenters had
a number of thoughts on this point. An
airline association said that it takes lo -
15 minutes to get a lift to a given aircraft
and board a disabled passenger,
possibly interfering with the 5-20
minute turnaround time many carriers
try to achieve, leading the group to
request a 48-hour advance notice
requirement for assistance. Another
airline association and an airline also
supported the idea of advance notice for
boarding assistance, to avoid or help
deal with conflicting demands for lift
service. Two airlines and an airport
expressed concern about delays,
particularly at hub airports where there
might be multiple demands for
assistance, but one of these airlines
noted it had no accurate data on the
time needed to complete a boarding
using a lift. However, airline
commenters generally said that boarding
passengers in chairs was faster and more
cost-effective than using lifts.
Two commenters noted that airlines
encounter flight delays for a variety of
reasons, and thought that assisted
boardings would not significantly add to
this problem, given their relative
infrequency. A lift manufacturer said an
actual boarding with its lift took just 3-
5 minutes, faster, it said. than using a
boarding chair. Another manufacturer
and a state agency noted that, under an
FAA advisory circular for lift devices,
lift boardings are to be accomplished in
six minutes or less, which would also be
unlikely to create significant delays.
Several disability community
commenters also expressed doubts that
delays would be a significant problem,
saying there was no data to support the
idea that a problem would exist.
The NPRM also asked about what, if
any, training requirements thbre should
be for personnel who provide boarding
assistance. Two airline associations and
two airlines said that no additional
training requirements—beyond the
general training requirement provided
in the existing ACAA rule—was
warranted. Airlines already have a
vested interest in making sure their
personnel perform their duties safely
and effectively, one of the associations
added. Three equipment manufacturers
also opposed additional training
requirements, one noting that the FAA
advisory circular already called for
training for lift operators, one asserting
that the training required by the FAA
circular was too lengthy, and the other
expressing concern about the cost of
training to manufacturers.
A larger group of commenters,
including disability groups, individuals,
and state and local agencies, supported
more specific training requirements.
Four of these specified that sensitivity
training should be required. A disability
group said DOT should strenuously
monitor training, since they saw poorly
trained employees as one of the biggest
problems that passengers with
disabilities encounter. An airport
supported training but suggested that it
should be provided by manufacturers
and carriers (unless the airport actually
operated the lift).
Three commenters suggested that the
use of lifts should be required for
aircraft with fewer than 19 seats, if the
lifts work with the particular aircraft.
One of these commenters noted two
small aircraft models with which lifts
would work. An airport suggested that
this requirement would make sense only
in cases where there was an accessible
means of deboarding at the destination
point. Several disability community
commenters said that, whatever the
final requirements, allowing denied
boardings was not acceptable. Lift
manufacturers emphasized their
products were available.
DOT Response
The final rule, like the NPRM,
requires boarding assistance under the
agreement required by this amendment
only for 19-30 seat aircraft. There may
be some situations in which the same
boarding assistance equipment can be
used to provide access to larger or
smaller aircraft: Where this is the case,
the Department recommends that
carriers and airports use it for this
56416 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
purpose, in preference to denying
transportation on smaller aircraft or
using less desirable means of boarding
assistance for larger aircraft.
The general ACAA requirement of
training to proficiency (including
refresher training, as needed, to
maintain proficiency) in matters
affecting transportation of passengers
with disabilities applies to boarding
assistance as well as other activities (see
§ 382.61(a); to the extent that airport
personnel are involved in boarding
assistance at a given airport, a similar
requirement extends to airports through
the amendment to 49 CFR Part 27).
While training is clearly important for
all aspects of transportation
accessibility, the Department does not
believe, as a general matter, that a
separate training requirement
specifically focused on boarding
assistance is needed. We note that
§ 382.61 requires refresher training, as
appropriate to the -duties of each
employee, to ensure that proficiency is
maintained. Because, in the absence of
means of boarding assistance, some
commuter carriers may have served few
persons with mobility impairments,
carrier employees trained previously
may not have maintained proficiency in
boarding assistance and other matters
necessary to proper service to such
passengers. Where this is the case, the
training requirements of the ACAA call
for bringing relevant personnel up to
proficiency in all these matters.
There is one exception. The training
requirements of § 382.61(a) apply only
to carriers who operate aircraft with
more than 19 seats. Carriers who operate
aircraft with 19 seats, but do not operate
larger aircraft, are not covered by this
requirement. Consequently, this rule
will require any carriers falling into this
category to provide training to
proficiency in boarding assistance for
those personnel who perform boarding
assistance duties. This amendment does
not require such carriers to carry out
other training responsibilities under
§ 382.61(a), although it is intended that
employees of these carriers receive
refresher training as needed to maintain
proficiency in boarding assistance
services.
The information provided by
commenters concerning the time
required for assisted boarding varied
considerably. Even given the lengthier
scenarios, however, it is not reasonable
to conclude—absent a massively larger
demand for assisted boardings than any
commenters have anticipated—that
significant systemic schedule disruption
is likeiy to occur. As some commenters
pointed out, individual flights are
delayed for a varied o' reasons—
weather, mechanical problems, air
traffic congestion, waiting for
passengers from incoming connecting
flights, etc. --on a routine basis. No one
likes these delays, but it seems fanciful
to suggest that delays from lift boardings
of disabled passengers will make a
significant difference in the overall
pattern of delayed flights, or have a
measurable effect on a carrier's overall
on-time performance record.
The Department is not persuaded that
this concern warrants adding a 48-hour
advance notice requirement for boarding
assistance. Obviously, passengers may
wish to inform carriers of their plans in
advance to attempt to make their
arrangements as smooth as possible.
However, as in the case of passengers
who are traveling with electric
wheelchairs, we believe it is reasonable
for airlines to have some reasonable
amount of time to provide the service in
question. Consequently, carriers will be
permitted to require that an individual
needing lift service check in at least an
hour before scheduled departure.
Airport Facility Requirements
Background/NPRM
The Department's current section 504
and ACAA provisions concerning
airport facilities differ in a number of -
details. This NPRM proposed to make
changes to harmonize the two sets of
requirements. The Department
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking for section 504 and an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
under the ACAA that would have
harmonized the two provisions in 1990,
at the same time as it published its
ACAA final rule. The Department
received very few comments in response
to those notices, and manv of the
specific points raised by the
commenters have been overtaken by the
enactment of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
The NPRM proposed to add
requirements in the ACAA and section
504 rules for a "program accessible"
path from the beginning of a passenger's
encounter with the airport facility to the
aircraft door, with emphasis on the
means of moving between the gate and
the aircraft. This is a particular concern
with respect to commuter aircraft,
which typically do not use loading
bridges, and passengers often have to
descend from the gate level to the
tarmac level to board the aircraft. The
proposal suggested that meeting Title III
or Title U ADA standards was an
appropriate requirement for airports and
airlines under the ACAA and section
504, respectively.
Because ADA facility accessibility
standards say little specifically about
airports, the Department proposed to
retain, with some modifications, the
airport -specific requirements of the
current ACAA and 504 rules. The
NPRM sought comment on whether
doing so would be confusing or
duplicative. The NPRM repeated the
existing language of the ACAA
regulation concerning
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDDs), saying that at least one TDD
shall be placed in each terminal. The
NPRM asked for comment on how this
requirement should be interpreted and
implemented.
Comments
Two issues predominated in
commenters' discussion of this portion
of the proposal: the idea of an accessible
path through the airport and the
placement of TDDs. A disability group
objected to the accessible path proposal
on the basis that it fell short of what was
required by the ADA and ACAA. This
commenter also said that such steps as
using a boarding chair to carry a
passenger down steps from the gate
level to the tarmac was not a proper part
of an accessible path. A state agency
said that using program accessibility
approaches other than facility
modification had saved the commenter
a substantial amount of money. Three
disability community commenters said
that the ADA accessibility guidelines
(ADAAGs) should apply to an accessible
path through airports. An airport
association and an individual suggested
that airports should have five years to
implement an accessible path. An
airport supported the accessible path
concept, as long as the rule made clear
that boarding assistance was the
airlines' job. An individual said that
airports should have a disability
specialist available to assist passengers.
A state agency noted that there were
some inconsistencies between the
.! ,DAAGs and the ACAA provisions that
the NPRM proposed to retain, and also
pointed to inconsistencies between the
ADAAGs and the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standard (UFAS), which
public entities could choose to use
under Title H of the ADA.
With respect to TDDs (one commenter
suggested using the term "TTYs"
instead), two commenters suggested
requiring improved signage to direct
passengers to where the instruments
were located. A number of commenters
asked for more specificity in the
definition of "terminal," to avoid
differing interpretations. A disability
agency suggested simply using the
ADAAG stnrieard for placement of these
E phon
supp
speci
TDD
man,
1 vand
favor
avoi(
jjj ACA
■ i•
Tr
sung
of ai
mak
sect:
ACF
othe
acct
the .
ther
ai p
airli
obli
faci.
acct
Stan
poi
bef
T
rely
tha,
tern
sul
the
imi
airy
ple
rea
acc
ter
"d,
tra
air
Ay
'ut
to
ie
he
deaf
)D
he
this
and
;tion
!ssible
•oup
posal
at was
'his
is as
e
�r part
y
ty
inter
ree
said
yes
,ssible
ested
to
gers.
,e
; that
also
the
ch
enter
i
t
a
.ters
v
iese
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56417
phones, while a TDD manufacturer
supported specifying a number of
specific locations in terminals where
TDDs would have to be placed. (This
manufacturer quoted a $995 price for a
vandal -resistant public unit.) An airline
favored keeping the existing standard, to
avoid confusion between ADA and
ACAA requirements.
DOT Response
The Department believes that the
simplest and best solution to the issue
of airport accessibility standards is to
make applicable to airports (through
section 504) and airlines (through the
ACAA) the requirements applicable to
other public facilities and public
accommodations of Titles II and III of
the ADA, respectively. This means that
there will be one common standard for
airport access, under which airports and
airlines will be subject to the same
obligations as other transportation
facilities and places of public
accommodation. Special airport -related
standards that, as some commenters
pointed out, could cause confusion will
be eliminated.
This approach is consistent with the.
relationship among disability statutes
that Congress intended. Air carriers'
terminal facilities appear not to be
subject to direct ADA coverage. Under
the Department of Justice (DOJ) rules
implementing Title III of the ADA,
airport terminals are not viewed as a
place of public accommodation. The
reason is that places of public
accommodation include only those
terminals used for the provision of
"designated" or "specified" public
transportation, and transportation by
aircraft does not constitute "designated"
or "specified" public transportation.
Congress excluded transportation by
aircraft from these ADA provisions
because Congress had already subjected
carriers to the ACAA, and it did not
want to impose duplicative
requirements.
The language and legislative history
of the ADA, however, reveal no
Congressional intent that carriers'
facilities be subject to any different
substantive requirements from those
affecting places of public
accommodation. It is clear that carriers
have an ACAA obligation with respect
to airport facilities. In defining the
standard by which carriers' compliance
with this obligation is judged. the
Department believes it makes sense to
refer to the ADA standard for public
accommodations. Consequently, the
final rule provides that carriers, with
respect to terminal facilities and
services. would be deemed to comply
with their ACAA obligations if they
meet the requirements spelled out for
places of public accommodation in
Department of Justice Title III ADA
rules.
Under Department of Justice
regulations implementing Title II of the
ADA (28 CFR Part 35), "title II applies
to everything and anything a public
entity does * * * All governmental
activities of public entities are covered."
(56 FR 35696; July 26, 1991). Public
airport authorities are public entities for
purposes of Title II; consequently, their
activities and facilities appear subject to
the requirements of DOJ Title II rules. It
has long been clear that airport
authorities that receive DOT financial
assistance are subject to section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. In amending the Department's
section 504 rule provision concerning
DOT -assisted airports, it makes sense to
refer to ADA standards. (Congress, in
enacting the ADA, made clear that it
intended for consistent substantive
standards to apply under both statutes.)
Therefore, under the final rule, the basic
standard for judging whether a public
airport authority complies with section
504 is compliance with the DOJ rules for
Title II of the ADA.
Obviously, there are some portions of
airports at which airport operators'
section 504 obligations and the ACAA.
obligations of carriers overlap. The
Department believes that these overlaps
can be treated in the same manner as the
relationships between public entity
landlords and private entity tenants
discussed in the -Department of Justice
ADA regulations. This means, of course,
that airports and airlines will have to
work out accessibility issues and
relationships at the local level.
This approach means that there will
not be special requirements in the DOT
rules concerning such issues as
placement of TDDs and inter -terminal
transportation. Inter -terminal
transportation will be subject to the
DOT ADA regulations affecting
transportation services generally. (Intra -
terminal transportation, as a service
provided by airlines and/or airports, is
subject to the same Title II or Title III
requirements as any other service. There
are no ADAAG standards applicable to
the design or construction of intra -
terminal vehicles, such as the electric
carts used in many airports.) Placement
of TDDs will be subject to the same
standards affecting public facilities and
places of public accommodation under
the ADA. Consequently, the issue
concerning the definition of "terminal"
for TDD placement purposes becomes
moot.
We point out that not only the general
terminal areas, but also some areas open
to part of the traveling public (e.g., the
airline "clubs" providing special
accommodations in terminals to
frequent fliers or persons who pay a fee
to the airlines) are subject to t} e
accessibility requirements of this rule.
These are spaces that, in Title III terms,
would be places of public
accommodation, and it is unlikely that
most would fall within the limited
"private club" exception to the ADA, as
defined in the Department of Justice
Title III rules. One implication of this
coverage is that, if telephone service is
provided to "members" within the club
space, then TDD requirements would
apply to the "club." It would not be
consistent with the rules for the carrier
to refer the passenger to a TDD phone
in the general passenger area of the
terminal, since the whole point of the
club is to provide a refuge from the
noise and bustle of the terminal.
The rule provides that the Americans
with Disabilitv Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAGs) will be the
standard by which airport facility
accessibility will be judged. The
ADAAGs include a provision (10.4.1)
dealing with new construction at
airports. This provision applies directly
to new construction and alterations at
airports. It is also the standard for
modifying facilities to meet accessibility
requirements for existing facilities,
under the "program accessibility" (see
28 CFR § 35.150) or "barrier removal"
(see 28 CFR § 36.304-305) provisions of
the Department of Justice Title II and
Title III rules.
The Department is aware that, for the
present, public entities subject to Title
II of the ADA can choose between
compliance with the ADAAGs and
compliance with the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS), which
differ in some particulars from the
ADAAGs. The Department of Justice,
DOT, and the Architectural and -
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) have proposed
applying the ADAAGs as the exclusive
standards for Title R entities. Rather
than further amend the ADA and ACAA
rules after this ADA rule change goes
into effect, we believe it is more sensible
to use the ADAAGs as the standard for
airport accessibility at this time. We
regard the ADAAGs as the pre-eminent
accessibility standard at this time, and
its use will also avoid any inconsistency
between the standards applicable to
airlines and airports under this rule.
Given the application of ADA
requirements and standards to airport
facilities, the only point on which the
Department believes it is necessary to
spell out an additional specific
requirement concerns an "accessible
56418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
path" for level changes between gate
and aircraft boarding areas. The
Department clearly interprets ADA
requirements as applying to the path an
individual must take between the
entrance to the airport and the means of
boarding the aircraft, specifically
including the way a passenger moves
between the gate and the aircraft. This
is important because, in many cases, the
gate area will be on an upstairs level of
an airport, while aircraft—particularly
small commuter aircraft --are boarded
from the tarmac. The basic idea is that
a key aspect of airports' and carriers'
program ---getting someone through the
airport and onto an aircraft—must be
accessible to individuals with
disabilities, including those using
wheelchairs.
Communicable Diseases
Background
Section 382.51 of the existing ACAA
rule provides that a carrier may not
refuse transportation to a passenger,
require the person to provide a medical
certificate, or impose other conditions
or restrictions on passengers, on the
basis that the passenger has a
communicable disease, except
with respect to an individual who has a
communicable disease or infection which has
been determined by the U.S. Surgeon
General. the Centers for Disease Control, or
other Federal public health authority
knowledgeable about the disease or infection,
to be transmissible to other persons in the
normal course of flight
This provision was originally designed
in response to a number of incidents in
the 1980s in which persons with AIDS
had been denied transportation or
otherwise discriminated against by air
carriers, apparently because of fear of, or
misinformation about, HIV infection
and how it is transmitted. It
subsequently became apparent to the
Department that this provision of the
rule needed clarification. Given the
absence of definitive guidance from the
Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease
Control, or the Public Health Service,
(which the Department has -
unsuccessfully sought), the closest
approach to medical guidance the
Department has been able to find is a
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulation listing several diseases (e.g.,
infectious tuberculosis, several viral
hemmoragic fevers) appropriate for
travel restrictions. The Department
issued guidance based on this FDA list,
stating that since other diseases have
not been named by Federal public
health authorities, carriers may not deny
or restrict transportation of persons with
other diseases.
Carrier medical personnel expressed
the concern that this guidance is too
restrictive, leading to potential conflicts
between the rule and their normal,
prudent medical judgment. They have
cited persons in the infectious stages of
chicken pox or measles as persons who
it may be appropriate to restrict, to
protect the health of other passengers. In
response to their concern, an airline
association requested that the
Department withdraw the guidance in
question. In addition, it has been
pointed out that, read literally, the
current regulatory provision could be
construed to allow carriers to exclude
persons with illnesses that are clearly
communicable by airborne transmission
or casual contact but which are not
serious for most persons, such as the
common cold (the Department would
not construe the rule in this fashion,
however).
The Department based its NPRM
proposal on three principles:
(1) It is reasonable for carriers to impose
restrictions on transportation only of persons
with diseases that are readily communicable,
in the normal course of flights, by airborne
transmission or casual contact. (For example,
restrictions could not be imposed on persons
because they were infected with HIV.)
(2) It is reasonable for carriers to impose
restrictions on transportation only of persons
with diseases that normally have serious
consequences for the health of persons who
catch the disease. (For example, restrictions
could not be imposed on persons because
they have a common cold.)
(3) Carriers should impose restrictions on
persons for reasons relating to communicable
diseases only with the advice and
concurrence of a physician. (That is, airline
personnel such as pilots, flight attendants, or
gate agents could not make unilateral
decisions to impose restrictions on
passengers.)
NFRM
The Department proposed rewriting
the current § 382.51(b) to reflect these
three principles. The NPRM proposed
two methods carriers could use to
implement these principles. First, when
faced with someone who may have a
contagious disease that may make travel
inadvisable, the carrier can obtain a
specific recommendation from a
physician. Second, the carrier, together
with its medical staff or consultants,
could devise a list of diseases that can
affect travel, consistent with the three
principles. The list would include
information on the stages of various
diseases during which travel would be
contraindicated. The list would be made
part of the carrier's regular information
base for employees (e.g., manuals,
computer reservation system
instructions). The NPRM suggested that
carriers, to promote consistency, should
coordinate a single, unified list, so the
same diseases have the same
consequences on all airlines.
Under'the proposal, in cases where
there is no dispute between the carrier
and a passenger over the fact that a
passenger has a disease on the list at a
point in time when it is contagious, the
passenger could be denied
transportation until a later time without
the carrier having to obtain a
recommendation from a physician in
the particular case. However, if the
passenger denied that he or she has a
disease on the list, or acknowledges
having the disease but insists that it is
not at the stage which the list describes
as infectious, then the carrier employee
would have to consult a physician.
In addition, the proposed amendment
stated that airlines would have to
impose the least restrictive alternative
in communicable disease situations
(e.g., should not deny transportation
when requiring a medical certificate is
sufficient); would allow a passenger to
travel at his or her original fare if travel
is postponed as the result of having a
communicable disease; and would
provide, on request, a written
explanation of any restrictions that are
imposed for reasons relating to
communicable diseases.
Comments
One airline and a number of disability
community commenters supported the
NPRM proposal. One disability group
suggested adopting the Department of
Justice's "direct threat" standard (from
DOJ's ADA Title III rule), including its
requirement that there be an
individualized assessment, based on
reasonable judgment that relies on
current medical knowledge or the best
objective evidence available, to
ascertain the nature, duration, and
severity of the risk, as well as mitigation
measures that could apply. Providing
the passenger a face mask was one
mitigating measure suggested by two
commenters. Another such group
recommended that the carrier should be
required to consider the
recommendations of the passenger's
treating physician, while a carrier said
that the passenger's personal physician
should certify that the individual can fly
safely.
With respect to the idea of a list of
communicable diseases, airlines and
their associations had a variety of
comments. One airline wanted DOT to
create the list. Other airlines wanted a
Federal health agency to create a list,
said the medical community's input
should
io the
here
'arrier
.a
it at a
us, the
vithout
,n in
he
las a
ges
it it is
>cribes
ployee
n.
idment
:alive
)ns
:ion
:ate is
ger to
'travel
ng a
A
at are
sability
ed the
roup
nt of
,from
ag its
on
n
best
I
igation
ling
wo
uld be
r
said
>ician
can fly
of
nd
)T to
ed a
,St.
,ut
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56419
should be obtained, that there should be
flexibility to add new diseases to the
list, and that there should be uniformity
in any such list given that passengers
often use more than one carrier fort
trip. Two carriers said that airlines,
which do not have extensive medial
staffs, should not be assigned the task
off creating a list. For the same reason,
one association said that an industry
group should be formed to compilethe
List. Another association questioned the
utility of such a list, since new diseases
appear from time to time, and reliaalce
on a list would be a disincentive to
considering individual circumstanoes.
With respect to the idea of s
consultation with a physician, two
carriers objected that it was impramcal
to seek medical advice in each cases{ and
that airline personnel should ha%mdie
discretion to deny boarding. An Mine
association suggested that qualifiedi
medical personnel other than a
physician should be permitted toseke
the determination involved, since
physicians might not be available$ a
timely fashion.
Other comments included a regeest
by an airline association that disesobs
transmissible by casual contact, =*ell
as by airborne means, should be a i
ground for restricting travel, a
suggestion by the same group thatsiny
ability to travel at a later date be liiLited
to 60 days, and a request by a disability
organization that carriers be requuOd to
reimburse passengers for expenses.,
incurred because of a carrier's decgsion
to postpone travel.
DOT Response
The Department has consideredthe
comments on this issue carefully,
recognizing the difficulty that carriers
and passengers can have in making
judgments about when it may be
inappropriate for a passenger to travel
because of illness. Based on comments,
the Department's discussions with
Federal health officials over a period of
several years, and the lack of expertise
within the Department, we have
decided that it is not feasible for us to
compile a list of diseases that would
warrant a denial of transportation or to
ask carriers to do so. Consequently, we
are not adopting the portion of the
proposal concerning lists.
With respect to the criteria for making
decisions on these issues, the
Department believes the best available
model is the "direct threat" language in
the Department of Justice's Title III ADA
regulation. The DOJ language reads as
follows:
Direct threat means a significant risk to the
health or safety of others that cannot be
eliminated by a modification of policies,
practices, or procedures, or by the provision
of auxiliary aids or services. In determining
whether an individual poses a direct threat
to the health or safety of others, a public
accommodation must make an
individualized assessment, based on
reasonable judgment that relies on current
medical knowledge or on the best available
objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature,
duration, and severity of the risk: the
probability that the actual injury will actually
occur; and whether reasonable modifications
of policies, practices, or procedures will
mitigate the risk. 28 CFR § 36.208).
This is well-established language that
gives due regard to both
nondiscrimination on the basis of
disability and the need of a public
accommodation to make reasoned
judgments to protect the health and
safety of other persons. Consequently,
the final rule adapts this language to the
context of air travel.
This approach is compatible with the
Department's purposes in publishing its
NPRM. For example, a communicable
disease that is not readily transmissible
by airborne means or by casual contact
is unlikely to pose a direct threat; nor
would a disease that, if communicated
by these means, does not pose a
significant health threat to the general
passenger population. AIDS, on one
hand, and the common cold, on the
other, are examples of communicable
diseases that would not generally pose
direct threats. Making medical
judgments cannot be entrusted to
personnel without medical training.
Consequently, it is unlikely that a
"direct threat" finding could be made
about a communicable disease that did
not rest on a medical determination by
a physician or nurse.
This direct threat concept dovetails
with the requirement that the airline
find the least restrictive means of
addressing an identified risk. It is not
consistent with this provision to deny
transportation to someone if a medical
certificate, or a face mask, or seating the
individual a few rows away from other
passengers. on a half -full flight, or some
other action will be sufficient to
mitigate the risk to other passengers
involved to the point where the
individual can travel without
endangering others.
While it would be useful for an airline
concerned about a passenger's condition
to consult with the passenger's
physician, we do not believe that it is
necessary to mandate such consultation
in the regulation. Such consultation
occurs in many cases now; certainly it
would be a reasonable part of the
process needed to make a direct threat
determination. Nor do we believe it
would be appropriate to require carriers
to compensate passengers whose travel
is delayed for medical reasons under
this section. Denial of service by a
carrier under these circumstances does
not constitute improper conduct that
should result in compensation. We note
that the NPRM already covered diseases
spread by casual contact as well as
airborne means, and the final rule
retains this point. Finally, we agree with
the comment that someone whose travel
is postponed for this reason should not
have perpetual right to make the trip.
We think that a 90 -day limit could fairly
be imposed by the carrier.
The FAA is conducting research into
cabin air quality issues, which,
beginning next year, will include
research into the risk of passengers and
crews contracting infectious diseases. In
addition, there is a multiagency working
group under the auspices of the
Committee on International Science,
Engineering, and Technology Policy of
President Clinton's National Science
and Technology Council. This group is
reviewing the U.S. role in detecting,
reporting, and responding to outbreaks
of new and re-emerging infectious
diseases. To the extent that research or
recommendations from these or other
sources provides additional information
bearing on policies affecting airline
transportation of individuals with
communicable diseases, the Department
can take account of it in future
rulemaking.
Other Issues
In both the ACAA and section 504
rules, the NPRM proposed updating
terminology (e.g., changing
"handicapped person" to "individual
with disabilities") consistent with
practice under the ADA. The proposed
section 504 amendment would also
make two administrative additions,
requiring the submittal of transition
plans by any airports which had not
already done so and specifically
applying nondiscrimination on the basis
of disability requirements to subsidized
Essential Air Service (EAS) carriers.
Unlike most carriers, who do not receive
Federal assistance, these carriers have
been covered under the existing section
504 rule, but they have not been
mentioned specifically, since Part 27
was promulgated before the Essential
Air Service program came under DOT
jurisdiction in January 1985. This
administrative addition does not create
any new obligations for subsidized EAS
carriers.
One airline commented that airlines
should not have to change the
terminology in their compliance
manuals if the rule's terms change. We
agree, and we are not imposing such a
requirement. There were not any other
56420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
comments on these proposals, which
the Department will adopt as proposed.
The NPRM asked for comment on
three other issues—seating
accommodations for persons with
disabilities, provisions concerning
collapsible electric wheelchairs, and
matters relating to the use of oxygen by
passengers. These issues are addressed
in a separate supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking in today's Federal
Register.
Withdrawal of 1990 Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the March 6, 1990, issue of Federal
Register in which the Department
published the original 1990 Air Carrier
Access Act final rule, the Department
also published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM; 55 FR
8076; RIN 2105—AB61). The Department
is withdrawing this SNPRM at this time.
The SNPRM concerned three subjects:
airport transportation systems,
standards for boarding chairs. and
substitute service when boarding
assistance is not available for small
commuter aircraft. These matters have
been overtaken by the present
rulemaking, which applies ADA
standards to airport transportation
systems and requires boarding
assistance, using lifts rather than
boarding chairs, for small commuter
aircraft. The withdrawal is an
administrative action that will remove
from the Department's regulatory
agenda an item pertaining to an NPRM
on which no further action is
anticipated.
Guidance Concerning Service Animals
m Air Transportation
The Department receives frequent
questions about the transportation of
service animals by airlines. On July 26,
1996, the Department of Justice issued
Americans with Disabilities Act
guidance concerning the access of
service animals to places of public
accommodation. The following
guidance is based on the DOJ issuance,
with adaptations to the context of air
transportation and answers to questions
the Department has been asked.
The Department of Transportation's
rules protecting the rights of air
travelers with disabilities require air
carriers to permit passengers to fly with
their service animals. The Air Carrier
Access Act (ACAA) rules say the
following:
Carriers shall permit dogs and other service
animals used by individuals with disabilities
to accompany the person on a flight.
(1) Carriers shall accept as evidence that an
animal is a service animal identification
cards, other written documentation, presence
of harnesses or markings on harnesses, tags
or the credible verbal assurances of the
qualified individual with disabilities using
the animal.
(2) Carriers shall permit a service animal to
accompany a qualified individual with
disabilities in any seat in which the person
sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or
other area that must remain unobstructed in
order to facilitate an emergency evacuation.
(14 CFR § 382.55(a))
If a service animal cannot be,
accommodated at the seat location of the
qualified individual with disabilities whom
the animal is accompanying ... the carrier
shall offer the passenger the opportunity to
move with the animal to a seat location, if
present on the aircraft, where the animal can
be accommodated, as an alternative to
requiring that the animal travel with checked
baggage.
(14 CFR § 382.37(c))
The questions and answers below are
intended to help carriers and passengers
understand how to respond to service
animal issues.
1. Q: What is a service animal?
A: Under the ACAA, a service animal
is any guide dog, signal dog, or other
animal individually trained to provide
assistance to an individual with a
disability. If the animal meets this
definition, it is considered a service
animal regardless of whether it has been
licensed or certified by a state or local
government.
2. Q: What work do service animals
perform?
A: Service animals perform some of
the tasks and functions that the
individual with a disability cannot
perform for him or herself. Guide dogs
that help blind individuals are the type
of service animal most people are
familiar with. But there are service
animals that assist persons with other
types of disabilities in their day-to-day
activities. Some examples include--
• Alerting persons with hearing
impairments to sounds.
• Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and
picking up things for persons with
mobility impairments.
• Assisting persons with mobility
impairments with balance.
An animal that does not perform
identifiable tasks or functions for an
individual with a disability probably is
not a service animal. However, it is not
essential that the animal perform the
functions for the individual while be or
she is traveling on the aircraft. The
functions can be ones that the animal
performs for the individual at his or her
destination.
3. Q: What must an airline do when an
individual with a disability using a
service animal seeks to travel?
A: The service animal must be
permitted to accompany the passenger
with a disability on the flight. The
animal must be allowed to accompany
the individual in any seat the individual
uses, except where the animal would
obstruct an aisle or other area required
by Federal Aviation Administration
safety rules to remain unobstructed for
emergency evacuation purposes. Service
animals are typically trained to curl up
under seats, which should reduce the
likelihood of such an obstruction.
If such an obstruction would occur,
the animal (and passenger, if possible)
should be relocated to some other place
in the cabin where it will not create
such an obstruction. If there is no space
in the cabin that will accommodate the
animal without causing such an
obstruction, then the animal is not
permitted to travel in the cabin.
To accommodate service animals,
airlines are not required to ask other
passengers to relinquish space that they
would normally use. For example, the
passenger sitting next to an individual
traveling with a service animal would
not need to allow the space under the
seat in front of him or her to be used to
accommodate the animal.
4. Q. Is a service animal a pet?
A: A service animal is not a pet. A
service animal is a working animal that
performs important functions for an
individual with a disability. The
individual with a disability has been
trained in 'the use of the service animal
and is responsible for all handling of the
animal. Consequently, carrier personnel
and other passengers should not attempt
to pet, play with, direct, or in any way
distract service animals.
It is also important to realize that a
pet is not a service animal. Many people
enjoy the companionship of animals.
But this relationship between an
individual and an animal, standing
alone, is not sufficient to cause an
animal to be regarded as a service
animal.
5. Q: How do the requirements of the
ACAA rule concerning service animals
relate to an airline's rules about
carrying pets?
A: Airlines may have whatever policy
they choose concerning pets. consistent
with U.S. Department of Agriculture
animal welfare rules. For example, they
can refuse to carry any pets. They can
carry pets only in containers stowed in
the cargo compartment. They can allow
small pets in carriers that fit under the
s
s
b
0
a-
il it
b,
a,
7
a:
ai
of
a%
ar
at
of
ex
w
A
an
th
.en an
•;a
enger
e
i pany
.ividual
ould
:uired
.on
ed for
Service
url up
the
ccur,
sible)
r place
ate
space
ite the
of
als,
her
:at they
e, the
idual
could
!r the
:sed to
t. A
:al that
- an
een
_riimal
:g of the
rsonnel
attempt
v way
iat a
people
.lals.
ng
n
f the
nimals
policy
.sistent
ure
.o. they
can
.. ed in
allow
:r the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56421
seat. Since service animals are not pets,
the ACAA requires airlines to modify
their pets policies to allow service
animals to accompany persons with a
disability in the cabin. When an animal
is determined by the airline not to be a
service animal, then the airline would
apply to the animal the same policy that
applies to pets.
In any situation in which the airline
determines that an animal is not a
service animal, the airline must
continue to give the passenger the
opportunity to travel without having the
service animal in the cabin. It is not
appropriate to deny transportation to a
passenger because the passenger's
animal is determined not to be a service
animal.
6.0: How can I tell If an animal really
is a service animal and not just a pet?
A: Some, but not all, service animals,
wear special collars or harnesses. For
example, guide dogs used by persons
with vision impairments typically wear
harnesses that enhance their ability to
guide the visually impaired person.
Some, but not all, service animals are
licensed and certified and have
identification papers.
If airline employees are not certain
that an animal is a service animal, they
may ask the person who has the animal
if it is a service animal required because
of a disability. However, an individual
who is planning to travel by air is not
necessarily going to be carrying around
documentation of his or her medical
condition or disability. Therefore, while
such documentation may be requested
as a means of verifying that the animal
is a service animal, it generally may not
be required as a condition of permitting
an individual to travel with his or her
service animal. (See Question 9 for a
situation in which documentation may
be required.) Likewise, while a number
of states have programs to certify service
animals, airline employees may not
insist on proof of state certification
before permitting the service animal to
accompany the person with a disability.
7. Q: What are "credible" verbal
assurances that an animal is a service
animal?
A: In the absence of documentation or
other obvious evidence that an animal is
a service animal, the only information
available to airline employees about the
animal may be what a passenger says
about his or her disability and the use
of the animal. Airline employees may
exercise their judgment concerning
whether the passenger's statements
about the training and functions of the
animal make it reasonable to think that
the animal is a service animai.
The factors discussed in this guidance
(e.g., the nature of the individual's
disability, the training the animal is said
to have received, its ability to behave
properly in public places, the functions
it is said to perform for the individual)
can be used in evaluating the credibility
of the passenger's statements. An airline
complaints resolution official (CRO),
whom the Department's ACAA rules
require to be available at each airport
that the airline serves, is a resource that
passengers and airline employees can
use to resolve difficult cases.
8. Q: What about unusual or multiple
animals?
A: Most people are familiar with the
use of dogs as service animals. On some
occasions, however, individuals may
ask to be accompanied in an aircraft
cabin by other kinds of animals. For
example, in a few cases, monkeys havo
been trained to provide services to
persons with severe mobility
impairments. There have been cases of
passengers requesting to be
accompanied by reptiles or rodents. In
addition, some passengers have asked to
travel with more than one animal at a
time.
In evaluating these situations, airline
employees should keep in mind some of
the important characteristics of service
animals. Service animals are trained to
perform specific functions for an
indivudal with a disability, and they are
trained to behave properly in public
places. Service animals are generally
trained to work on a one-to-one basis
with an individual with a disability.
Airline employees may inquire about
these matters and may use their
judgment about whether, in light of
these factors, a particular animal is a
service animal. as distinct from a pet
that a passenger wants to bring on
board.
9. Q: How should airline employees
respond to a claim that being
accompanied by an animal is necessary
for the emotional well-being of an
individual with a mental or emotional
disability?
A: Many people receive emotional
support from being near an animal. The
assertion of a passenger that an animal
remaining in his or her company is a
needed accommodation to a disability,
however, may often be difficult to verify
or to distinguish from the situation of
any person who is fond of a pet. In
addition. the animal may not, in such a
situation, perform any visible function.
For these reasons, it is reasonable for
airline employees to request appropriate
documentation of the individual's
disability and the medical or theraputic
necessity of the passnger's trave'ing
with the animal. Moreover, the animal,
like any service animal, must be trained
to behave properly in a public setting.
10. Q: What about service animals that
are not accompanying a passenger with
a disability?
Sometimes, an animal that is trained
to work with people with disabilities
may travel by air but not be
accompanied by an individual with a
disability for whom the animal performs
service animal functions. For example,
a non -disabled handler may transport a
"therapy dog" to a location, such as a
rehabilitation center, where it will
perform services for individuals with
physical or mental disabilities.
The Department's Air Carrier Access
Act regulation intended to assist
passengers with disabilities by ensuring
that they can travel with the service
animals that perform functions for them.
When a service animal is not
accompanying a passenger with a
disability, the rule's rationale for
permitting the animal to travel in the
cabin does not apply. While the animal
may be traveling to a location where it
will perform valuable services to other
people, it would be subject to the
airline's general policies with respect to
the carriage of animals.
11. Q: What if an animal acts out of
control?
A: Service animals are trained to
behave properly in public settings. For
example, a properly trained service
animal will remain at its owner's feet.
It does not run freelv around an aircraft
or airport gate area, bark or growl
repeatedly at other persons on the
aircraft, bite or jump on people, or
urinate or defecate in the cabin or gate
area. An animal that engages in such
disruptive behavior shows that it has
not been successfully trained to
function as a service animal in Dublic
settings. Therefore, airlines are not
required to treat it as a service animal.
even if the animal is one that performs
an assistive function for a passenger
with a disability. However, airline
personnel should consider available
means of mitigating the effect of an
animal's behavior that are acceptable to
the individual with a disability (e.g.,
muzzling a dog that barks frequently)
that would permit the animal to travel
in the cabin.
While an airline is not required to
permit an animal to travel in the cabin
if it engages in disruptive behavior, or
other behavior that poses a direct threat
tc the health or safety of persons on the
aircraft, airline employees may not
make assumptions about how a
56422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
particular animal is likely to behave
based on past experience with other
animals. Each situation must be
considered individually. Airline
employees may inquire, however, about
whether a particular animal has been
trained to behave properly in a public
setting.
12. Q: Can airlines charge a
maintenance or cleaning fee for
customers who bring service animals
onto aircraft?
A: No. The ACAA prohibits special
charges, such as deposits or surcharges,
for accommodations required to be
made to passengers' disabilities. This is
true even if such charges are routinely
regired to transport pets.
However, an airline can charge
passengers with disabilities if a service
animal causes damage, so long as it is
the regular practice of the airline to
charge non -disabled passengers for the
same types of damages. For example,
the airline can charge passengers with a
disability for the cost of repairing or
cleaning seats damaged by a service
animal if it is the airline's policy to
charge when non -disabled passengers
cause similar damage.
13. Q: Are airlines responsible for the
animal while a person with a disability
is on the aircraft?
A. No. The care and supervision of a
service animal is solely the
responsibility of its owner. The
individual with a disability has been
trained in the use of the service animal
and is responsible for all handling of the
animal. The airline is not required to
provide care or food or special facilities
for the animal.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This is not a significant rule under
Executive Order 12866. It is a sigtlificant
rule under the Department's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. A regulatory
evaluation that examines the projected
costs and impapts of the lift
requirements in the rule has been
placed in the docket. Briefly, the
Department estimates that equipment
and operational costs of the lift
requirement (net present value over 20
years) will range between $18.6 and
$51.8 million. In terms of benefits, the
analysis suggests that an additional
450,000 trips to mobility -impaired
travelers could result from the
availability of lift devices, resulting in a
net present value profit to carriers of
$48 million over 20 years. There are, in
addition, non -quantifiable benefits (e.g.,
greater travel opportunities for
passengers, greater dignity in the
boarding process). The airport
accessibility provisions of the rule are
not projected to have significant costs.
We note that Federally -assisted
airports have been subject to very
similar requirements under section 504
since the first publication of 49 CFR Part
27 in 1979. Airlines have been subject
to very similar requirements since the
first publication of 14 CFR Part 382 in
1990. New costs related to moving to
ADA -based standards should not be
great, and are limited in any case by the
readily achievable/program accessibility
provisions made applicable to airlines
and airports, respectively.
The Department certifies that this
rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
There are not a substantial number of
small air carriers covered by this rule,
particularly given the exclusion of
"problem aircraft" and aircraft with
fewer than 19 seats from boarding
assistance requirement. These aircraft
are heavily represented among the
smallest air carriers. The smallest
airports are excluded from the boarding
assistance rule altogether; other small
airports will have costs reduced by the
4 -year phase-in for them. For all
airports, terminal accessibility
requirements are not expected to be
costly. They are very similar to existing
requirements, and they include
provisions ensuring that unduly
burdensome changes are not required.
Consequently, the Department does not
anticipate a significant economic effect
on small airports.
The Department has determined that
there would not be sufficient Federalism
impacts t9 warrant the preparation. of a
Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 and
49 CFR Part 27
Aviation. Handicapped.
issued this 8th day of October, 1996, at
Washington, D.C.
Federico Peiia,
Secretary of Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department amends 14
CFR Part 382 and 49 CFR Part 27 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
Part 382 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and
41712.
2. In 14 CFR Part 382, including the
title thereof, the word "handicap" is
revised to read "disability" wherever it
occurs. The term "handicapped
individual" is revised to read
"individual with a disability" wherever
it occurs. The term "handicapped
individuals" is revised to read
"individuals with a disability"
whenever it occurs. The term "qualified
handicapped individual" is revised to
read "qualified individual with a
disability" wherever it occurs. The term
"qualified handicapped individuals" is
revised to read "qualified individuals
with a disability" wherever it occurs.
3. In 14 CFR Part 382, § 382.23 is
revised to read as follows:
§382.23 Airport facilities.
(a) This section applies to all terminal
facilities and pervices owned, leased, or
operated on any basis by an air carrier
at a commercial service airport,
including parking and ground
transportation facilities.
(b) Air carriers shall ensure that the
terminal facilities and services subject
to this section shall be readily accessible
to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who
use wheelchairs. Air carriers shall be
deemed to comply with this Air Carrier
Access Act obligation if they meet
requirements applying to places of
public accommodation under
Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations
implementing Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
(c) The carrier shall ensure that there
is an accessible path between the gate
and the area from which aircraft are
boarded.
(d) Systems of inter -terminal
transportation, including, but not
limited to, shuttle vehicles and people
movers, shall comply with applicable
requirements of the Department of
Transportation's ADA rule.
(e) The Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAGs),
including section 10.4 concerning
airport facilities, shall be the standard
for accessibility under this section.
(f) Contracts or leases between carriers
and airport operators concerning the use
of airport facilities shall set forth the
respective responsibilities of the parties
for the provision of accessible facilities
and services to individuals with
disabilities as required by this part for
carriers and applicable section 504 and
ADA rules of the Department of
Transportation and Department of
Justice for airport operators.
4. In paragraph (a)(2) of § 382.39 of 14
CFR Part 382, in the first sentence
thereof, the word "suitable" is added
before the word "devices" and two
sentences are added at the end of the
paragraph reading as follows.
§ 38249 Provision of services and
equipment.
(a)...
alified
A to
a term
ils" is
,als
urs.
is
rminal
led, or
:rrier
tthe
bject
:essible
who
I be
.arrier
t
,f
3tions
+ricans
there
gate
tre
�ople
able
f
i ties
AAGs),
dard
t.
:arriers
he use
he
)arties
ilities
-t for
4 and
)of 14
led
0
the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 5642"
(2) * * * In no case shall carrier
personnel be required to hand -carry a
passenger in order to provide boarding
assistance (i.e., directly to pick up the
passenger's body in the arms of one or
more carrier personnel to effect a level
change the passenger needs to enter or
leave the aircraft). Requirements for
providing boarding assistance to
commuter aircraft with fewer than 30
seats are found in § 382.40.
§ 38239 (Amended]
5. In § 382.39 of 14 CFR Part 382,
paragraph (a)(4) is removed.
6. A new § 382.40 is added, to read as
follows:
§ 38240 Boarding assistance for small
aircraft
(a) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section apply to air carriers conducting
passenger operations with aircraft
having 19-30 seat capacity at airports
with 10.000 or more annual
enplanements.
(Pb) Carriers shall, in cooperation with
the airports they serve, provide boarding
assistance to individuals with
disabilities using mechanical lifts,
ramps, or other suitable devices that do
not require employees to lift or carry
passengers up stairs.
(c) (1) Each carrier shall negotiate in
good faith with the airport operator at
each airport concerning the acquisition
and use of boarding assistance devices.
The carrier(s) and the airport operator
shall, by no later than September 2,
1997, sign a written agreement
allocating responsibility for meeting the
boarding assistance requirements of this
section between or among the parties.
The agreement shall be made available,
on request, to representatives of the
Departrnent of Transportation.
(2) The agreement shall provide that
all actions necessary to ensure
accessible boarding for passengers with
disabilities are completed as soon as
practicable, but no later than December
2. 1998 at large and medium
commercial service hub airports (those
with 1,200.000 or more annual
enplanements); December 2, 1999 for
small commercial service hub airports
(those with between 250.000 and
1,199,999 annual enplanements); or
December 4, 2000 for non -hub
commercial service primary airports
(those with between 10,000 and 249.999
annual enplanements) . All air carriers
and airport operators involved are
jointly responsible for the timely and
complete implementation of the
agreement.
(3) Under the agreement, carriers may
require that passengers wishing to
receive boarding assistance requiring
the use of a lift for a flight using a 19-
30 seat aircraft check in for the flight
one hour before the scheduled departure
time for the flight. If the passenger
checks in after this time, the carrier
shall nonetheless provide the boarding
assistance by lift if it can do so by
making a reasonable effort, without
delaying the flight.
(4) Boarding assistance under the
agreement is not required in the
following situations:
(i) Access to aircraft with a capacity
of fewer than 19 or more than 30 seats;
(ii) Access to floatlanes;
(iii) Access to the fallowing 19 -seat
capacity aircraft models: the Fairchild
Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech
1900 (C and D models);
(iv) Access to any other 19 -seat
aircraft model determined by the
Department of Transportation to be
unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift
on the basis of a significant risk of
serious damage to the aircraft or the
presence of internal barriers that
preclude passengers who use a boarding
or aisle chair to reach a non -exit row
seat.
(5) When boarding assistance is not
required to be provided under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or
cannot be provided as required by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for
reasons beyond the control of the parties
to the agreement (e.g., because of
mechanical problems with a lift),
boarding assistance shall be provided by
any available means to which the
passenger consents, except hand -
carrying as defined in § 382.39(a)(2) of
this part.
(6) The agreement shall ensure that all
lifts and other accessibility equipment
are maintained in proper working
condition.
(d)(1) The training of carrier
personnel required by § 382.61 shall
include, for those personnel involved in
providing boarding assistance. training
to proficiency in the use of the boarding
assistance equipment used by the carrier
and appropriate boarding assistance
procedures that safeguard the safety and
dignity of passengers.
(2) Carriers who do not operate
aircraft with more than a 19 -seat
capacity shall ensure that those
personnel involved in providing
boarding assistance are trained to
proficiency it, the use of the boarding
assistance equipment used by the carrier
and appropriate boarding assistance
procedures that safeguard the safety and
dignity of passengers.
7. In § 382.45 of 14 CFR Part 382,
paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
§382.45 Passenger Information.
(a) * * *
(2) Any limitations on the ability of
the aircraft to accommodate qualified
individuals with disabilities, including
limitations on the availability of
boarding assistance to the aircraft, with
respect to the departure and destination
points and any intermediate stops. The
carrier shall provide this information to
any passenger who states that he or she
uses a wheelchair for boarding, even if
the passenger does not explicitly reques
the information.
* *
8. In § 382.51 of 14 CFR Part 382,
paragraph (b) is revised to read as
follows:
§382.51 Communicable diseases.
* *
(b)(1) The carrier may take the actions
listed in paragraph (a) of this section
with respect to an individual who has
a communicable disease or infection
only if the individual's condition poses
a direct threat to the health or safety of
others.
(2) For purposes of this section, a
direct threat means a significant risk to
the health or safety of others that cannot
be eliminated by a modification of
policies, practices, or procedures, or by
the provision of auxiliary aids or
services.
(3) In determining whether an
individual poses a direct threat to the
health or safety of others, a carrier must
make an individualized assessment,
based on reasonable judgment that relive
on current medical knowledge or on the
best available objective evidence. to
ascertain: the nature, duration, and
severity of the risk; that the potential
harm to the health and safety of others
will actually occur; and whether
reasonable modifications of policies,
practices, or procedures will mitigate
the risk.
(4) In taking actions authorized under
this paragraph, carriers shall select the
alternative, consistent with the safety
and health of other persons, that is least
restrictive from the point of view of the
passenger with the communicable
disease. For example, the carrier shall
not refuse to provide transportation to
an individual if provision of a medical
certificate or reasonable rnodifications
to practices, policies, or procedures will
mitigate the risk of communication of
the disease to others to an extent that
would permit the individual to travel.
(5) If an action authorized under this
paragraph results in the postponement
of a passenger's travel, the carrier shall
permit the passenger to travel at a later
time (up to 90 days from the data of the
postponed travel) at the fare ''-at would
56424 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
have applied to the passenger's
originally scheduled trip without
penalty or, at the passenger's discretion,
provide a refund for any unused flights,
including return flights.
(6) Upon the passenger's request, the
carrier shall provide to the passenger a
written explanation of any action taken
under this paragraph within 10 days of
the request.
9. The authority citation for 49 CFR
Part 27 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec.
16 (a) and (d) of the Federal Transit Act of
1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310 (a) and (f);
sea 165(b) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act
of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142 nt.).
10. In 49 CFR Part 27, including the
title thereof, the word "handicap" is
revised to read "disability" wherever it
occurs. The term "handicapped
individual" is revised to read
"individual with a disability" wherever
it occurs. The term "handicapped
individuals" is revised to read
"individuals with a disability"
wherever it occurs. The term "qualified
handicapped individuals" is revised to
read "qualified individuals with a
disability" wherever it occurs.
11. In § 27.5 of 49 CFR Part 27, the
definition of "Air Carrier Airport" is
removed, and a new definition of
"Commercial Service Airport" is added
in the appropriate alphabetical
placement, to read as follows:
§27.5 Definitions.
t 4 ♦ R
Commercial service airport means an
airport that is defined as a commercial
service airport for purposes of the
Federal Aviation Administrations
Airport Improvement Program and that
enplanes annually 2500 or more
passengers and receives scheduled
passenger service of aircraft.
12. Section 27.71 of 49 CFR Part 27
is revised to read as follows:
§ 27.71 Airport facilities.
(a) This section applies to all terminal
facilities and services owned, leased, or
operated on any basis by a recipient of
DOT financial assistance at a
commercial service airport, including
parking and ground transportation
facilities.
(b) Airport operators shall ensure that
the termirfal facilities and services
subject to this section shall be readily
accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs. Airport operators
shall be deemed to comply with this
section 504 obligation if they meet
requirements applying to state and local
government programs and facilities
under Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations implementing Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
(c) The airport shall ensure that there
is an accessible path between the gate
and the area from which aircraft are
boarded.
(d) Systems of inter -terminal
transportation, including, but not
limited to, shuttle vehicles and people
movers, shall comply with applicable.
requirements of the Department of
Transportation's ADA rules.
(e) The Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAA(Js),
including section 10.4 concerning
airport facilities, shall be the standard
for accessibility under this section.
(f) Contracts or leases between carriers
and airport operators concerning the use
of airport facilities shall set forth the
respective responsibilities of the parties
for the provision of accessible facilities
and services to individuals with
disabilities as required by this part and
applicable ADA rulds of the Department
of Transportation and Department of
Justice for airport operators and
applicable Air Carrier Access Act rules
(49 CFR part 382) for carriers.
(g) If an airport operator who receives
Federal financial assistance for an
existing airport facility has not already
done so, the recipient shall submit a
transition plan meeting the
requirements of § 27.65(d) of this part to
the FAA no later than March 3, 1997.
13. A new § 27.72 is added to 49 CFR
Part 27, to read as follows:
§ 27.72 Boarding assistance for small
aircraft.
(a) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section apply to airports with 10,000 or
more annual enplanements.
(b) Airports shall, in cooperation with
carriers serving the airports, provide
boarding assistance to individuals with
disabilities using mechanical lifts,
ramps, or other devices that do not
require employees to lift or carry
passengers up stairs.
(c)(1) Each airport operator shall
negotiate in good faith with each carrier
serving the airport concerning the
acquisition and use of boarding
assistance devices. The airport operator
and the carrier(s) shall, by no later than
September 2, 1997, sign a written
agreement allocating responsibility for
meeting the boarding assistance
requirements of this section between or
among the parties. The agreement shall
be made available, on request, to
representatives of the Department of
Transportation.
(2) The agreement shall provide that
all actions necessary to ensure
accessible boarding for passengers with
disabilities are completed as soon as
practicable, but no later than December
2, 1998 rule at large and medium
commercial service hub airports (those
with 1,200,000 or more annual
enplanements); December 2, 1999 rule
for small commercial service hub
airports (those with between 250,000
and 1,199,999 annual enplanements); or
December 4, 2000 rule for non -hub
commercial service primary airports
(those with between 10,000 and 249,999
annual enplanements). All air carriers
and airport operators involved are
jointly responsible for the timely and
complete implementation of the
agreement.
(3) Boarding assistance under the
agreement is not required in the
following situations:
(i) Access to aircraft with a capacity
of fewer than 19 or more than 30 seats;
(ii) Access to float planes;
(iii) Access to the following 19 -seat
capacity aircraft models: the Fairchild
Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech
1900 (C and D models);
(iv) Access to any other 19 -seat
aircraft model determined by the
Department of Transportation to be
unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift
on the basis of a significant risk of
serious damage to the aircraft or the
presence of internal barriers that
preclude passengers who use a boarding
or aisle chair to reach a non -exit row
seat.
(4) When boarding assistance is not
required to be provided under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or
cannot be provided as required by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for
reasons beyond the control of the parties
to the agreement (e.g., because of
mechanical problems with a lift),
boarding assistance shall be provided by
any available means to which the
passenger consents, except hand -
carrying as defined in § 382.39(a)(2) of
this part.
(5) The agreement shall ensure that all
lifts and other accessibility equipment
are maintained in proper working
condition.
(d) In the event that airport personnel
are involved in providing boarding
assistance, the airport shall ensure that
they are trained to proficiency in the use
of the boarding assistance equipment
used at the airport and appropriate
boarding assistance procedures that
safeguard the safety and dignity of
passengers.
14. A new § 27.77 is added to 49 CFR
Part 27, to read as follows:
F
Z
F:
G
A(
S(
A.
Ct
AC
an
SU
irr
Fi.
Gr
Ar
M.
Fi:
Isl
Ar,
ME:
Ki
Be.
(Cr
to ,
ob:
cat
cor,
fist
cov
acc
als(
the
Pla�
nec
Pac
(Cc
Res
Am
Gro
de that
;ers with
)on as
'ecember
_;m
is (those
399 rule
iub
.50,000
ments); or
.-hub
:rports
id 249,999
carriers
iare
aly and
lie
or the
he
capacity
30 seats;
19 -seat
?airchild
he Beech
seat
the
itobe
:ance by lift
.sk of
or the
:hat
a boarding
ixit row
ice is not
,r
)n, or
ed by
section for
f the parties
ie of
lift),
provided by
a the
.and -
.39(a)(2) of
sure that all
quipment
rking
-t personnel
arding
insure that
.v in the use
;uipment
)pr late
res that
pity of
l to 49 CFR
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 56425
§ 27.77 Recipients of Essential Air Service
subsidies.
Any air carrier receiving Federal
financial assistance from the
Department of Transportation under the
Essential Air Service program shall, as
a condition of receiving such assistance,
comply with applicable requirements of
this part and applicable section 504 and
ACAA rules of the Department of
Transportation.
(FR Doc. 96-28084 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE 4910-0-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960717195-6280-02; I.D.
070196E]
RIN 0648-AI95
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; North Pacific
Fisheries Research Pian; Interim
Groundfish Observer Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to
implement Amendment 47 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska,
Amendment 47 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish
Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Area (Groundfish FMPs),
Amendment 6 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Commercial
King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area
(Crab FMP), and a technical amendment
to clarify existing regulations that the
observer coverage requirements for
catcher vessels participating in the
community development quota (CDC)
fisheries are in addition to the observer
coverage requirements for the open
access groundfish fisheries. This action
also repeals regulations implementing
the North Pacific Fisheries Research
Plan (Research Plan). This action is
necessary to respond to the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council's
(Council) recommendation to repeal the
Research Plan and implement
Amendments 47 and 47 to the
Groundfish FMPs to establish
mandatory groundfish observer coverage
requirements through 1997.
Amendment 6 to the Crab FMP removes
reference to the Research Plan. This
action establishes an Interim Groundfish
Observer Program until a long-term
program that addresses concerns about
observer data integrity, equitable
distribution of observer coverage costs,
and observer compensation and working
conditions is recommended by the
Council and implemented by NMFS.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendments 47,
47, and 6 and the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for the
amendments may be obtained from the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, Suite 306, 605 West 4th
Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252;
telephone: 907-271-2809. Send
comments regarding burden estimates or
any other aspect of the data
requirements, including suggestions for
reducing the burdens to NMFS and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503,
Attn: NOAA Desk Officer.
Copies of the information regarding
observer qualifications, observer
training/briefing requirements, and
NMFS' selection criteria for observer
contractors are available from the
Observer Program Office, Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, Building 4,
7600 Sand Point Wav Northeast, Seattle.
WA 98115, telephone: 206-526-4197.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim
S. Rivera, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands management area
(BSAI) in the exclusive economic zone
are managed by NMFS under the
Groundfish FMPs. The FMPs were
prepared by the Council under the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1301, et
seq.; Magnuson Act) and are
implemented by regulations for the U.S.
fisheries off Alaska at 50 CFR part 679.
General regulations that also pertain to
U.S. fisheries are codified at 50 CFR part
600. The Crab FNIP delegates
management of the crab resources in the
BSM to the State of Alaska (State) with
Federal oversight. Regulations necessary
to carry out the Crab FMP appear at 50
CFR part 679.
This action implements regulations
authorized undF-r Amendments 47 and
47 to the Groundfish r`MPs and
Amendment 6 to the Crab FMP. These
amendments were approved by NMFS
on October 3, 1996, and authorize the
repeal of the Research Plan and the
establishment of an Interim Groundfish
Observer Program for 1997.-
A
997.A full description of and background
information on the repeal of the
Research Plan and the establishment of
an Interim Groundfish Observer
Program and its specific elements may
be found in the preamble to the
proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on August 2, 1996 (61 FR
40380), and in the EA/RIR prepared for
this action.
Existing observer coverage
requirements under Amendment 1 to
the Research Plan are scheduled to
expire on December 31, 1996. At its
April 1996 meeting, the Council
adopted an Interim Groundfish Observer
Program that would supersede the
Research Plan and authorize mandatory
groundfish observer coverage
requirements through 1997. The Interim
Groundfish Observer Program will
extend 1996 groundfish observer
coverage requirements through 1997,
unless superseded by a long-term
program that addresses concerns about
observer data integrity, equitable
distribution of observer coverage costs,
observer compensation and working
conditions, and other concerns raised by
the Council. Under this action, observer
coverage requirements for the BSAI king
and Tanner crab fisheries will no longer
be specified in Federal regulations.
Observer coverage requirements for the
crab fisheries will revert back to a
Category 3 measure in the Crab FMP
and will be specified by the Alaska
Board of Fisheries.
Except for the minor changes noted
below, the elements of the Interim
Groundfish Observer Program as
provided in the preamble of the
proposed rule are unchanged in this
rule. Three elements of the Interim
Groundfish Observer Program will not
be codified in regulation: (1) Observer
qualifications, (2) observer training/
briefing requirements, and (3) NMFS'
selection criteria for observer
contractors. These elements were also
provided in the preamble of the
proposed rule and are unchanged in the
final rule. They are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES). Although they
will not be codified, they are viewed as
a part of the program. Prior to proposing
future changes to these three elements,
NMFS will publish a document Ln the
Federal Register describing the
proposed change(s) and providing an
opportunity for public commem.
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 213 / Fridav, November 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 5648
proposes to amend 14 CFR Pat 71 as
follows:
PART 71 --[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(8), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854: 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR. 1959-
1963 Comp., p. 389.14 CFR 11.69.
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9D, dated
September 4, 1996, and effective
September 16, 1996, is proposed to be
amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the Earth
AEA VA E5 Staunton, VA [Revised)
Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport. VA
(lat. 38° 15'49" N, long. 78' 53'47" W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 10.5 -mile
radius of Shenandoah Valley Regional
Airport and within 8 miles northwest and 4
miles southeast of the Shenandoah Valley
Regional Airport localizer southwest course
extending from the STAUT NDB to 16 miles
southwest of the NDB and within a 6.8 -mile
radius of Bridgewater Air Park and within 4
miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of the
208° bearing from the Bridgewater NDB
extending from the NDB to 16 miles
southwest of the NDB.
Issued in Jamaica. New York. on October
21. 1996.
Jolty S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-28109 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
14 CFR Part 382
[Docket OST -96-1880; Notice 9625]
RIN 2105—AC28
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Handicap in Air Travei
AGENCY: Department of Transportation,
Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: The Department is proposing
to amend its rules implementing the Air
Carrier Access Act of 1986 concerning
seating accommodations for individuals
with disabilities and the stowage of
collapsible electric wheelchairs. These
proposals are the result of petitions for
rulemaking on which the Department
previously received comment. The
Department is also proposing to clarify
the meaning of the general
nondiscrimination provision in the Air
Carrier Access Act rule. The Department
is also seeking comment on petitions
requesting a smoke-free path through
airports for passengers with severe
respiratory disabilities.
DATES: Comments are requested within
January 30, 1997. Late -filed comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent,
preferably in triplicate, to Docket Clerk,
Docket No. OST -96-1880. Department
of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W.,
Room PL -401, Washington, D.C., 20590.
We request that, to facilitate scanning
comments into the Department's
electronic docket system, commenters
put comments on 81h by 11 inch white
paper using dark ink, without tabs and
unbound. Comments will be available
for inspection at this address from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Commenters who wish the
receipt of their comments to be
acknowledged should include a
stamped, self-addressed postcard with
their comments.'The Docket Clerk will
date -stamp the postcard and mail it back
to the commenter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy .Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W.,
Room 10424, Washington, D.C.. 20590.
(202) 366--9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687
(TDD); or Nancy Ebersole, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, same street address, Room 9217,
(202)366-4864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In its September 1993 notice of
proposed rulemaking on the Air Carrier
Access Act (ACAA) rules (58 FR 47681;
September 9. 1993), the Department
asked for comment on three petitions for
rulemaking. These concerned use of
oxygen by airline passengers, seating
accommodations for passengers with
disabilities, and the stowage of
collapsible electric wheelchairs. The
Department is considering addressing
the first of these issues through a
negotiated rulemaking. The Department
has decided to grant the other two
petitions, by issuing this NPRM
proposing amendments to the ACAA
rule. The public will have the
opportunity to comment on these
proposals before the Department takes
any final action on them. In addition,
having become aware of
misunderstanding on the part of some
parties concerning the scope and nature
of the general nondiscrimination
obligation under the ACAA, the
Department is proposing a clarification
of Part 382's statement of that
obligation.
General Nondiscrimination Obligation
The history of the ACA'A clearly
shows that Congress enacted the statute+
to fill a gap in nondiscrimination
coverage left by a Supreme Court
decision that said that section 504 of tht
Rehabilitation Act did not apply to air
carriers, since they do not (with the
exception of participants in the
Essential Air Service program) receive
Federal financial assistance. The intent
of the statute was to achieve the same
protection from discrimination for
airline passengers that section 504
provides persons affected by Federally -
assisted programs. For a summary of the
history of the Act, see the preamble to
the Department's 1990 final ACAA rule
(55 FR 8009; March 6, 1990).
When Congress enacted the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
it excluded transportation by aircraft
from the definition of "specified public
transportation." Congress did so
specifically because air transportation
was covered by the ACAA. (See H. Rept.
101-485, Pt. 1; May 14, 1990; p. 36.)
There is no evidence that Congress
intended this exclusion, which simply
avoids duplication in coverage, to
suggest that a weaker standard of
nondiscrimination applies to air carriers
than to transportation providers covered
by the ADA.
Under section 504 and the ADA,
providers of transportation and other
facilities and services to the public have
the obligation to take steps to
accommodate customers who have
disabilities, though these obligations
have limits. For example, places of
public accommodation under Title III of
the ADA are required to make
reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, when the
modifications are necessary to afford goods,
services, facilities, privileges, or
accommodations to individuals with
disabilities, unless the public
accommodation can demonstrate that making
the modifications would fundamentally alter
the nature of the goods, services, facilities.
privileges, or accommodations. (28 CFR
§ 36.302.(a))
Under the ADA, public
accommodations must remove barriers
where doing so is "readily achievable
i.e., easily accomplishable and able to
be carried out without much difficulty
or expense" (28 CFR § 36.304(a)). One
option open to a public accommodation
is making its services available through
readilv achievable alternative means
where barrier removal itself is not
56482 Federal Register i Vol. 61. No. 213 / Friday. November 1. 1996 / Proposed Rules
readily achievable (28 CFR § 36.305(a)).
These provisions are intended to be
compatible with the section 504
standards, which requires recipients of
Federal funds to make accommodations
to the needs of individuals with
disabilities, as long as doing so does not
create undue financial or administrative
burdens.
The Department has become aware
that there may be some
misunderstanding concerning the
applicability of these basic
nondiscrimination principles to air
carriers. To avoid such
misunderstanding, the Department is
proposing to add language to the
nondiscrimination section of Part 382
reciting explicitly the existing legal
requirement that carriers have the duty
of accommodating disabilities of
passengers, consistent with these
principles, even where a specific
accommodation is not mandated
elsewhere in the regulation.
Seating Assignments to Accommodate
Passengers' Disabilities
Background
Section 382.37 of the existing rule,
concerning seating assignments,
prohibits carriers from excluding a
person from a particular seat location or
requiring a person to sit in a particular
location, on the basis of disability, with
certain exceptions (e.g., to comply with
the FAA's exit row seating rule). The
intent of this provision was to preclude
carriers from limiting a passenger's
choice of seats on the basis of disability.
The issue in this rulemaking is the other
side of this coin: should carriers be
required to provide a particular seat
assignment that a passenger needs to
accommodate a disability?
The petitioner, a consumer, has a
disability that prevents her from
bending one of her legs. She requested
that the ACAA rule be modified to
require airlines to seat a passenger in a
location requested by the passenger
(e.g., a bulkhead seat) when sitting in
that location is necessary to reasonably
accommodate the passenger's disability,
even if this requires changing the seat
assignment of another passenger. In
addition to asking for comment on this
petition, the 1993 NPRM also requested
comment on whether, if such a
requirement were added to the rule,
carriers should be permitted to require
advance notice for this accommodation.
Comments
There was strong support for this
petition from consumers. About 50
comments from passengers and
disability groups said that airlines
shouid accommodate passengers with
disabilities by placing them in a seat
that facilitates their travel. Exampies
cited in the comments included
ensuring that passengers with mobility
impairments had the opportunity to sit
in a a row with a movable aisle armrest,
that people with fused legs could sit in
bulkhead seats, that personal care
attendants could sit next to passengers
whom they serve, and that people with
guide dogs could choose either a
bulkhead or non -bulkhead seat.
One commenter suggested that, if an
appropriate seat in coach was not
available, the airline should offer a first-
class upgrade if it would facilitate the
passenger's travel and there was a seat
available in first class. A few
commenters suggested that it would be
acceptable for an airline to require
passengers requesting a seating
accommodation to provide
documentation of their need (e.g., a note
from their doctor). Four disability
community commenters opposed
permitting airlines to request advance
notice forproviding seating
accommodations. Three commenters
suggested that seating accommodations
be made for tall people, since they have
trouble being comfortable in many
airline seats, and one suggested similar
treatment for parents traveling with
infants.
Carriers and their associations
generally opposed the petition. They
had several objections. First, it would be
difficult to determine which people
deserved priority for seating
accommodations. For example, if
multiple persons arrived for a flight and
asked for a bulkhead seat, how would
carrier personnel decide who should be
selected to receive the desired seat?
Airline personnel should not have to
decide who is the most deserving
passenger. Second, it would be unfair
and annoying to other passengers who
were asked to move to make room for
the disabled passengers. Passengers
typically reserve flights on a first-come/
first -serve basis, and often seek aisle or
bulkhead seats because there is more
space there, because they are tall,
because they have infants to care for,
etc. They do not want to be bumped
from the seat assignment they had
called in advance to obtain. Third,
having to deal with seat reassignments
would distract flight attendants and
other personnel from other pre-flight
duties, including those related to safety.
One commenter pointed out that, like
other passengers, people with
disabilities could call early for a seat
assignment in order to get the
accommodation they wanted. This
commenter suggested that carriers
should not have to do more than hold
back one or two seats from advance
assignment, and then only unti 24
hours before departure. Another
commenter suggested that, rather than
mandating seating accommodations.
airlines should ask for volunteers to
move from seats, perhaps providing
incentives like extra frequent-flier miles.
One commenter thought disabled
passengers present a risk because they
clog the aisles. The commenter believes
that such passengers should be kept out
of aisle seats and deplaned last. Another
said that passengers who want extra
room should pay for it or find another
mode of transportation. Three
commenters thought that passengers
desiring seating accommodations
should have to provide advance notice,
to minimize last-minute seat changes for
other passengers.
DOT Response
As noted above, carriers have an
obligation to accommodate the
disabilities of passengers, through
means such as altering policies and
practices, as long as doing so does not
create an undue financial or
administrative burden or fundamentally
alter the nature of the service provided.
After reviewing the comments on this
petition, the Department believes that
responding to requests for seat
assignments to accommodate the needs
of an individual with a disability comes
well within the scope of this obligation.
Many people with disabilities—
particularly those with mobility
impairments—find it very difficult to
travel by air in the absence of seat
assignments that facilitate their use of
the aircraft. Having to transfer over a
fixed aisle armrest, when moveable
armrests are available elsewhere in the
cabin, burdens wheelchair users. Sitting
in a middle non -bulkhead seat may
make it unfeasible for someone with a
fused leg to travel. Sitting apart from a
personal care attendant may make it
impossible for a person with severe
mobility impairment to eat or to receive
other needed assistance during the
flight. Seating accommodations that
permit an individual who travels with a
service animal to sit with the animal
may also be necessary.
The proposal would apply only to
requests in these four categories. The
Department does not believe it would be
relevant to apply the provision to
persons with other disabilities (e.g..
vision or hearing impairments, less
severe mobility impairments). However,
we seek comments on whether there are
additional situations in which seating
accommodations should be provided. In
addition. we seek comment on whether
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 56483'
it is necessary or appropriate for persons
seeking these seating accommodations
to provide any documentation to the
carrier.
To accommodate these needs of
individuals with disabilities would not
appear to impose significant financial or
administrative burdens on carriers; or
fundamentally alter the nature of the
service they provide to passengers.
What appears to be needed is a limited
modification of existing administrative
policies. There could be some
inconvenience to other passengers, but
when a carrier is implementing a
nondiscrimination statute like the
ACAA, accommodating the needs of
passengers with disabilities outweighs
this inconvenience.
Under the proposal, a passenger
seeking seating accommodations would
call the airline at least 48 hours before
the scheduled departure of the flight
(see discussion of advance notice
below). If the airline had any seats that
would provide the accommodation that
had not yet been assigned to another
passenger. it would assign such a seat to
the requester. This includes situations
in which there are unassigned seats that
have not been made available for
assignment to the general passenger
population (e.g., seats that are not
assigned until a short time before the
flight or that are held for frequent fliers).
If, however, all seats in which the
needed accommodation could be
provided to the requester have been
assigned to other passengers, the airline
would change the -seat assignment of
another passenger. In no case, however.
would another passenger be bumped off
the flight to accommodate the seating
requests of an individual with a
disabilitv.
Part 382 alreadv contains a number of
accommodations for disabled
passengers for which carriers may
request advance notification (see 14 CFR
§ 382.33(b)). The purpose of this
provision is to give carriers time to
prepare to provide the accommodations.
While the Department is aware that
consumers with disabilities have
opposed provisions of this kind, we
believe that they strike a fair balance
between the needs of passengers to
receive accommodations and the needs
of carriers to do the work of providing
them. Therefore, in addition to requiring
seating accommodations. we propose to
add a 48 hours' advance notice
provision.
We would point out that, for all
accommodations to which the advance
notice provisions apply. a carrier is
required to provide the accommodation
even when the passenger does not
provide advance notice, if the carrier
can do so by making a reasonable effort
that will 'not delay the flight (see 14 CFR
§ 382.33(c)). In the case of seating
accommodations, this should prove
possible to do in most instances, since
all that may be involved is a quick
request by carrier personnel to another
passenger to switch seats to
accommodate the situation of a disabled
passenger. While, in a case where
advance notice had not been provided.
the airline would not be mandated to
change another passenger's seating
assignment, the carrier would be
obligated to make the request, and
could, as comments suggested, provide
incentives to persons who agreed to a
seat assignment change.
The Department does not believe that
implementing this proposed
requirement would place carriers in the
position of determining who was the
most deserving occupant of a. given seat.
Airlines could, under the proposal.
operate in a "first-come/first-served"
manner. That is, if a passenger with a
disability for which sitting in a
bulkhead seat would be an
accommodation (e.g.. an individual with
a fused leg, a passenger traveling with
a service dog) makes a request to sit in
that seat. another passenger
subsequently requesting that seat as an
accommodation to a disability could be
told that the seat was unavailable. The
airline would find a different seat to
accommodate the second passenger to
the extent feasible.
A few things that this NPRM does not
propose to require in this provision
should be noted. The proposal would
not require airlines that do not pre-
assign seats to passengers to begin doing
so. These airlines allow passengers
needing various kinds of
accommodations to preboard.
Permitting passengers who need
particular kinds of seating
accommodations to preboard would
satisfy the intent of this provision. It
might be necessary, however, for the
carrier to request or direct that some
preboarded passengers move to
accommodate a passenger with a
disability who needed a particular seat
location as an accommodation. The
Department seeks comment on whether
any specific regulatory provisions are
needed to handle this situation.
Nor would this proposal require the
airline to provide upgrades to first class
for coach passengers or provide more
than one seat to an individual. In this
context, we note that the Department
has received occasional inquiries
concerning passengers who are very
obese. It may be necessary for some
such passengers to occupy the space of
two seats. The Department has been
asked whether it is consistent with the
ACAA for carriers to charge for two
seats in this situation. We have replied
that. if an individual is actually using
two seats, it is not discriminatory for the
airline to charge the individual for two
seats. The Department seeks comments
on whether this approach should be
changed. Should there be circumstances
in which such a passenger should be
accommodated without being charged
for more than one seat?
Handling of Collapsible Electric
Wheelchairs
Background
The Department received a petition
from Mr. Ralph Black, an attorney
representing a consumer who uses a
collapsible electric wheelchair. powered
by a non -spillable battery. The
consumer has encountered difficulty
with airlines that, in her view, treat the
wheelchair as it were a non -collapsible
wheelchair powered by a spillable
battery. The petition set forth a rationale
for changing the ACAA rule and
suggested revisions to the rule's
language.
Comments
Disability commenters generally
supported this petition. A few expressed
the concern that airlines may damage
wheelchairs, either by dropping them
when being located into the luggage
compartment or when disassembling or
reassembling them. (Two carriers
suggested. in response to this latter
problem, that wheelchair manufacturers
or passengers be required to provide
written instructions for disassembly and
reassembly.)
Air carrier comments focused on the
battery -related portions of the petition.
They reiterated a long-standing industry
concern that passengers are not reliable
sources of information about whether a
battery is spillable or non -spillable.
Reliance on passenger -representations,
they said, could lead to safety problems.
Some carrier comments suggested that
FAA certify or label which batteries are
non -spillable or that carriers be able to
rely on their own list of approved non -
spillable batteries.
DOT Response
The Department has decided to
partially grant this petition for
rulemaking. We believe it is useful to
clarify that collapsible electric
wheelchairs, like folding manual
wheelchairs, can be carried in the cabin
if they can be transported in appropriate
storage locations, such as in closets or
overhead compartments. or under seats.
Indeed, commenters appeared to have
56484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Fridav, November 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules
no objections to this idea. 'lire
Department has interpreted its existing
rule consistent with this idea.
Consequently, we are proposing to
adopt the petitioner's proposed
amendment to § 382.41(g)(1), as well as
adding clarifications to § 42.41(e)
concerning in -cabin storag%
However, the issue of difrtinguishing
spillable from non -spillable batteries
continues to be complex. and it
continues to be discussed among the
Department and representatives of the
industry and disability c community. We
believe that is premature to propose
further rulemaking on thesubject of
handling batteries at this*ne. We, also
believe that the existing. Permissive
provision concerning wriMn
instructions for disasserattiity and
reassembly is adequate. Mile do not see
in the comments an adequate basis for
making the provision of sinch
instructions mandatory.
Additional Provisions feelPassengers
With Hearing Impairmeaft
The Department has reabived some
suggestions for additional irulemaking
concerning accommodations for persons
with hearing impairments. These
include captioning of video material
(e.g., movies and other e>Kertainment
features) shown on the aiacraft, and
making telecommunications devices for
the deaf (TDDs) availablewhere air
phone service is provided, to other
passengers. Part 382 requires captioning
of safety videos, but not other videos
shown on flights. Another suggestion
was for providing assistive listening
technology for public address
announcements in the aircraft. The
Department has also received
suggestions for electronic message and/
or assistive listening technology in gate
areas, to ensure that hearing-impaired
passengers would receive information
about flight departures and arrivals,
boarding announcements, etc. The
Department seeks comment on the need
for such accommodations. as well as
their technical feasibility and cost.
Petitions Concerning an Accessible Path
Through Airports for Persons With
Severe Respiratory Disabilities
The Department is seeking comment
on petitions from individuals with
respiratory disabilities for a requirement
for an accessible path through airports.
Petitions on this subject have been
received from Dr. Dwain Eckberg, a
physician and medical school faculty
member from Richmond, Virginia, and
Dr. Judith Plotkin, a Maryland resident.
Both individuals suggested that the
Department add regulatory provisions to
protect such individuals from exposure
to tobacco smoke.
The petitions make the point that
some individuals have respiratory
conditions that can create significant
health problems for them if they are
exposed to tobacco smoke. If such an
individual must, in order to get from the
entrance of an airport to an aircraft, pass
through areas in which he or she is
exposed to smoke, he or she may suffer
these health problems, require oxygen
that is not immediately available, or
require emergency medical treatment.
Exposure to smoke, then, acts as a
significant barrier for such individuals
to the use of the air travel system.
If granted, these petitions would lead
to a proposal that carriers and airports
carrier ensure that an individual with a
severe respiratory disability that is
triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke
have available a path of access from the
terminal entrance to the aircraft free
from exposure to tobacco smoke. As
with other airport terminal accessibility
issues, amendments to both the ACAA
and section 504 rules would be needed
as part of such a proposal. The air
carrier and airport would be expected to
work together to meet an obligation to
provide such passengers with a means
of getting to an aircraft that does not
expose them to significant adverse
health effects.
We anticipate that any proposal
resulting from this petition would not
specify or limit the means to be used. A
smoke-free path through the airport,
transportation from -the gate to the
tarmac that does not go through a
terminal in which smoke is present, an
enclosed cart that took the passenger
through the airport without exposure to
smoke that was present, etc. might all be
possibilities.
The Department would not intend, if
it granted these petitions, to propose to
ban all smoking in terminals. Regulating
smoking in public places is traditionally
a state or local matter, and the
Department would not attempt to pre-
empt state or local decisionmaking.
The Department seeks comment on
whether we should propose a provision
of the kind requested by the petitioners.
We seek comments on the extent to
which such a provision is needed and
on cost and feasibility considerations
that should be taken into account.
The Department is also aware of
people with environmental sensitivities
to a wide variety of common substances
(e.g., cleaning agents, perfumes). In
some cases, these sensitivities may be
severe. In addition to seeking comment
on whether to proceed with a proposal
based on the petitions, the Department
seeks comment on whether it would be
desirable and feasible to have similar
provisions for people with severe
environmental sensitivities.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This NPRM does not propose a,
significant rule under Executive Order
12866 or a significant rule under the
Department's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. The Department certifies
that this rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant Economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The basis for this statement is that the
modifications to airline practices and
procedures involved if the rules are
made final would involve little
additional cost to carriers or airports.
The Department has determined that
there would not be sufficient Federalism
impacts to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. As it
implements a nondiscrimination statute,
this rule is not subject to scrutiny tinder
the Unfunded Mandates Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382
Aviation, Handicapped.
Issued this 8th Day of October, 1996, at
Washington, D.C.
Federico Peiia.
Secretary of Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department proposes to
amend 14 CFR Part 382 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
Part 382 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and
41712.
2. In § 382.7, a new paragraph (c)
would be added to read as follows:
§382.7 General prohibition of
discrimination.
(c) In carrying out their
nondiscrimination obligations under
this part, carriers shall, in addition to
meeting the specific requirements of
this part, provide accommodations to
passengers with disabilities and remove
barriers to the use of facilities and
aircraft by such passengers. In meeting
this obligation, carriers shall apply the
standards of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1974, as amended,
and Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
3. In § 382.33(b), the "and" at the end
of paragraph (b)(7) is proposed to be
removed, a semicolon and the word
"and" are proposed to be substituted for
the period at the end of paragraph (b)(8),
and a new paragraph (b)(9) is proposed
to be added, to read as follows:
Federal, Register / Vol. 61, No. 213 / Friday, November 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 56485
§382.33 Advance notice requirements.
(b).,
(9) Designation of a patticular seat as
an accommodation to a kassenger's
disability.
4. In § 382.37, a new Wagraph (d) is
proposed to be added to�ead as follows:
§ 382.37 Seat assignmeaft.
(d) On request of a passenger with a
disability designated inparagraph (d)(1)
of this section for a pardtular seat
assignment needed to a kommodate the
disability, the carrier sbdl provide the
seat assignment to the poissenger.
(1) Requests for seatir;
accommodations requind to be
accommodated under this paragraph
include a request by a wheelchair user
for a seat in a row witha lmoveable
armrest, a request by a parson traveling
with a personal care attakdant whose
services will be neededam the flight to
sit next to the personal are attendant,
a request by an individual traveling
with a service animal far -a bulkhead or
non -bulkhead seat, or aWquest by an
individual with a fused air immobile leg
for a bulkhead seat or ober seat that
provides greater legrooms than other
seats. '
(2) In responding to requests from
passengers for seat assignments to
accommodate a disabiliti, carriers shall
comply with FAA safetyttules,
including those pertaining to exit row
seating (see 14 CFR 121.085 and 14 CFR
135.129).
(3) When a person maims a request for
a seating accommodation covered by
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the
carrier shall assign the parson a seat
providing the requested accommodation
if it has not already beenassigned, even
if the seat is not availabla for assignment
to other passengers at the -time.
(4) When a person maims a request for
a seating accommodation covered by
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and all
seats providing the requested
accommodation have already been
assigned to other passengers, the carrier
shall change the seat assignment of
other passengers as needed to provide
the accommodation.
(5) The carrier is not required to
provide the accommodations in
paragraphs (d) (4) and (5) in response to
a request made less than 48 hours before
the scheduled departure time of the
flight.
(6) If an individual making the request
does not make it 48 hours before the
scheduled departure time of the flight,
the carrier shall attempt to meet the
request by asking other passengers to
move to a different seat location to
accommodate the individual. No other
passenger shall be required to change
assigned seats, however.
(7) If the carrier has already assigned
a seat to an individual with a disability
in response to a request covered by this
paragraph, the carrier shall not reassign
that individual to another seat in
response to a subsequent request from
another individual with a disability
without the first individual's consent.
(8) In no case shall any passenger be
removed from a flight or denied
transportation in order to accommodate
an individual with a disability under
this paragraph.
5. In § 382.41, paragraphs (e)(2) and
(g)(2) are proposed to be revised to read
as follows:
§382.41 Stowage of personal equipment.
(e) .
(2) In an aircraft in which a closet or
other approved stowage area is provided
in the cabin for passengers' carry -on
items, of a size that will accommodate
a folding, collapsible, or break -down
wheelchair, the carrier shall designate
priority stowage space, as described in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section for at
least one such wheelchair in that area.
(ii) An individual with a disability
who takes advantage of a carrier offer of
the opportunity to preboard the aircraft
may stow his or her wheelchair in this
area, with priority over the carry -on
items brought onto the aircraft by other
passengers enplaning at the same
airport. An individual with a disability
who does not take advantage of a carrier
offer of the opportunity to preboard may
use the area to stow his or her
wheelchair on a first-come, first-served
basis along with all other passengers
seeking to stow carry -on items in the
area.
(g) .
(2) Whenever feasible, the carrier
shall transport electric -powered
wheelchairs secured in an upright
position, so that batteries need not be
separated from the wheelchair in order
to comply with DOT hazardous
materials rules. However, when an
electric -powered wheelchair is
designated to fold or collapse, the
passenger may request that the batteries
be removed and the wheelchair be
folded. The carrier shall, in anv case,
take those actions (and only those
actions) required by DOT hazardous
materials regulations with respect to the
transportation of batteries by air.
IFR Doc. 96-27192 Filed 10-31-96: 8:45 aml
a1661NG CODE 4910-82-M
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 300
[Release No, SIPA-160; File No. SIPC-96-
1]
Rules of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule change.
SUMMARY: The Securities Investor
Protection Corporation ("SIPC") filed a
proposed rule change with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
("Commission"). The proposed rule
change amends SIPC Rules 3001 and
301,2 which relate to the closeout and
completion of contracts for the purchase
or sale of securities made by debtors in
liquidation under the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA"). The
Commission is publishing the proposed
rule change for public comment. Within
thirty-five days of publication of notice,
the Commission must (absent an
extension) by order approve the
proposed rule change or institute
disapproval proceedings. Because SIPC
rules have the force and effect as if
promulgated by the Commission, those
rules are published in Title 17 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.3
DATES: Comments are to be received on
or before November 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
and arguments concerning the
foregoing. Persons making written
submissions should file six copies
thereof with the Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth
Street, N.W.. Washington D.C. 20549,
Copies of the submissions, all
subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed
rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in
the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20549. Copies of such
filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
' 17 CFR 300.300 (1996). Rule 300 sets out the
definitions of certain terms used in SIPC's rules.
217 CFR 300.301 (1996). Rule 301 governs
contracts to be closed out or completed in a
liquidation.
317 CFR 300.100-300.503 (1996).
November 21, 1996
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
Fisher's Island Ferry District
P.O. Box H
Foot of State Street
Fisher's Island, NY 06390
Re: Fisher's Island Airport
FAA Programming Meeting
File: 211
Dear Mr. Knauff:
cas
Engineers, Inc.
1099 Airport Boulevard, North Syracuse, New York 13212
(315) 455-2000 Fax (315) 455-9667
NOY 2 5 1996
SW16W T., Clerk
We met with Phil Brito, Manager of the FAA NYADO and his staff in their office
on November 13 and 14, 1996. Also in attendance were Mr. Rick Chimera, Mr.
Doug Fox and Mr. Lorrin Bird of the NYSDOT Aviation Division. The purpose of
the meeting was to communicate, face-to-face, the capital improvement needs of the
Fisher's Island Airport, as identified on your current 5 -Year ACIP. During the
meeting the NYADO communicated their intentions for funding your projects this
fiscal year. The following is a summary of our discussions regarding Fisher's Island
Airport:
The FAA was informed of your continued desire not to be considered
for funding. No further discussions occurred.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
am
Mark F. Petranchuk
Manager, Airport Design Services
MFP:lp
cc: Ms. Jean Cochran
F:\DIVISION\AIR\PRIVATE\MARKP\FISHERIS\FAAM'PG97. WPI)
SENT BY: 11- 7-96 ; 14=31 ; US ENGINEERS, INC.- 516 765 1823;# 1/ 3
DE" AIRPORT CLIENT:
Crouse -Hinds Airport Lighting Products has offered to conduct an Airport Lighting
Maintenance Seminar at our office. We have tentatively selected December 3rd -
5th as proposed dates. We intend to offer attendance first to representatives of our
valued airport clients and then to othe=r airpotts on a space available basis.
Attendees would be responsible for their travel, lodging, and evening meal(s).
There will be no charge for the training, continental breakfast(s) and lunches.
1i
When this seminar was previously conducted in Connecticut, it consisted of two
days of classes followed by a half day tour of the Crouse -Hinds factory. We will
tailor this seminar agenda to be as responsive to as many attendees as possible.
The possibilities inc=lude offering the full agenda, part of the training, or even
rearranging the agenda so that some of the attendees with common interests could
attend one day and some mould attend the entire event. In lieu of the factory tour,
Bob Radway, Airport Operations Officer for Syracuse` Hancock International
Airport, has offered to host a tour of the airfield clectdcal'vault'and system for
interested parties.
If f.;u are interested in sending an individual(s), please 'complete the attw;hed
Airport Lighting Seminar Interest. Survey indicating what training 'interests your
staff, and fax back to my Administrative Assistant, Vicki Scott, who will be
c001-dinating the details, by the close of business on ;Wednesday; November 13th,
so that we and Crouse -Hinds can make timely, responsive decisions regarding this
offering.
Please do not hesitate to call me with your questions or concerns.
Vt.r y truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
Rc nald L. Pec'.&mm, P.E.
Vir.;(: Presiders`
Rl ,I'/vh
P:%R)Yv.:iioU hW.ND9
SENT BY:
FAX A11N: VICKI SCOTT
C&S ENGWKERS
FAX;315-455-9667
11- 7-96 ; 14:32 US ENGINEERS, INC. -1 516 765 1823;# 2/ 3
AIRPORT NAME
AIIZPORT LIGHTING SEMINAR
INTEREST SUI VErt
1. We would send _ to the training desired as marked below.
No. of staff
2. Either December 3rd -5th are acceptable dates to send the"Aiattendces.
Or We are interested in the training, but o&" s'`tf cannot "itend during the
December 3rd -5th time period. We suggest you consider scheduling the training we are
interested in on:
AGENDA
TUFSPAY, DF,CEMBER 3RD Please check one for each topic.
MMED Nor SUMCIENT'
77tAlN1Nl': Irrce�ersrr
7.30 am -
8.00 am
Continental Breakfast
8:00 am -
8:15 am
Introduction to Seminar
8:15 am -
9:30 am
Visual Aid Maintenance
and the Four "C's"
9:30 am -
11:30 asn
Constant Curernt Regulators
11:30 am -
12:00 pm
Open Forum, Q & A
12:00 pm -
1:W pm
Lunch
1:00 pm -
2:30 pm
Inpavement Lighting
2:30 pm -
3:30 pm
Guidance Signs
3:30 pm -
Open Poium, Q & A
D. Wiggin
K. Foster .
P. Rakowski
K. Foster
P. Rakowski
F:1R1 o�C.QpII.SP.HI.N1K 1 of 2
SENT BY:
11- 7-96 14:32
US ENGINEERS,
INC.- 516 765 1823;* 3/ 3
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4TH
Mase check one for each topic,
DESIRED NOT SUPMC1bNT
TRAINING INTMMST
7:30 aim - 8:00 am
Continental Breakfast
8:00 am - 10:00 am
Series Circuit Troubleshooting P. Rakowski
10;00 am - 11:00 am
Elevated Light Fixtures
K. Foster
11:00 am - 12:00 noon
DAPI System
P. Rakowski
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Lunch
1;00pm- 2:00pmSeries
Circuit Switches
K. Foster
& IMUS
2:00 pin - 2:30 pm
Isolation Transformers
P. Rakowski
2:30 pm - 3:00 pm
Cable Connector Kits
P. Rakowski
3:00 pm -
Open Forum, Q & A
THuRsDAY, DECEMBER STu Pkase check one for each topic.
DESUMD' N OT S If P P I C I F N T
TRAINING TNTEREST
7:30 am - 8:00 am Continental Breakfast
8:00 aim - 10;00 am Tour of Syracuse Hancock International
Airport
Things that I would be interested in seeing on the tour include:
PLEASE pRIW YOUR NAME, Pjf0NUVUMBFFjt, AND FAX NUAMM FOR FINAL SEMINAR INFORMATION.
NAME PHONO FAX#
PARLMROUSIMI-NDS 2 of 2
SENT dilk: 10--17-96 14:37 C&S ENGINEERS, INC-+
r
M
- Fax Cover Sheet -
Date: ! 0l .� 7196
Page ;: 2
To:
Fax Phone:
From: Ronald L. Peckham, PE
Subject: AIP Summary
Remcocks:
516 765 1823;# 1/ 2
Engineers, Inc.
1099 Airport Blvd,
North Syracuse, NY 13212
315-455-2000
FAX 315-455-9667
RECEIVED
DICT 181996
SmAcH T r?wr, rl-r!,
In an effort to keep our clients informed, we want to pass along the
attacliad AIP summary that just arrived at our office.
As we have not had a chance to verify each point, please use this info
with c _, a tion.
Please don't hesitate to call your CBIS contact or me with your
questions.
Important Notice: This fax may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law and is intended only for use by the Individual or entity to which it Is addressed. If the receiver
of this fax Is not the intended recipient (toted above, we ask Vmt you forward the fax to the individual so noted. Additionally,
any dtssernlnabon, distribution or copying of this communication by any person other than that to which h is addressed Is
prohib1t . If ttw Individual to which k Is addressed Is not within Your office, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone and return the original message to the sender at the atxve address by mall.
SENT o : 10-17-D6 14:.J7 ; C&S E:NG 1 NEERS, INC- 516 765 182,9;--t
Consultant Update
October 11, 1996
Fron . Pausa R. bline, ACC Executive Director
Paul I., Shank, P.E., ACC Go,iernmont Affair.. Committee Chair, Campbell & Paris Engineers
Mission Accomplished! !
$1.46 b111ira s for the FY 1997 Airport l: npmvament ,Program (AIP) is a reality. The FAA authorization bill
of 1996 was signeu by the President ktober 9, 1996, r,)aking available $1.46 million for the AIP for FY97. The fol-
lowing is a summary of the provisione t'iat ma -G interest the consultant community.
• Entitlements. arrports should receive nearly full entitlements, Non -hubs can carry over entitlements for 3 years.
• Discretionary Funding: should be $300 million, will at least be $148 million in addition to existing LOIs.
New Criteria: • have passenger forecasts Increased by 20% during previous year.
• are state priorities similar to FAA regional priorities_
• relievers: what number of operations are diverted from a primary airport.
• Noise Set Asi la Category: will be n, iintained atild should Lae funded at approximately $132 million.
• Single Category: General Aviation, Vo Bever and Non -Primary Commercial service Airports.
• Multi -Year Ruaway Construction Pmjects: shall be given priority 4 they increase capacity and are cost benefitial.
• Reimbursement for Projects Underway: are permitted using AIP grants (projects initiated after 9/30/96)
• Federal Mandates: can more readily be paid for using AIP/PFC monies.
• Military Airport Program: is extended for 2 years, 12 sites. Does not apply to airports prior to 8!24/94.
New Crilion,.a. • must be closed/recligned military airports,
• must reOuce delay by 20,000 houra/year or increase capacity or reduce delays in met-
ropotitan ureas.
• can be deNignatod for additional 5 -year periods.
• indefinitely .extends eligibility for parking lots, fuel farms, hangars.
• Innovative Financing Projects: 10 are authorized (payments of interest, bond insurance and flexible local match).
• Pavement Maintenance Projects: 10 are authorized (2 projects in states without a medium or large hub
airport) -Stars Block Grant Program: becomes permanent, expands from 7 to 8 states in FY97, 9 states In FY 98.
• Airport Privatization Pilot Pmgram: 2 years, provides for the long term lease of 5 airports (1 large hub,
3 medium, Small or non -hub; and 1 general aviation).
Conditions: • 65% of airlines must agree to rate hikes and transactions.
• AIP allowed, but must be 60% private / 40% federal.
• Essential Air Service Program: will continue and be funded up to $50 million per year.
• Revsnue Diversion: statutory prohibitions against airports are expanded.
President signed rhe FAA reauthorization bill
into law and AIP FUNDING BECOMES AVAIL-
ABLE PROVIDED THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL HAS PASSED (October 9, 1996).
Prime 1 w 1
President eigned the appropriations bill Into
law and AIP FUNDING BECOMES AVAIL-
ABLE PROVIDED THE AUTHORIZATION
BILL HAS PASSED (September 30, 1996).
.Airpora Consulrams Council • 908 King Street, Suke 100 • A14=ndna, VA 22314 USA • Phan 703-683-59M -1':u 703-683-2564
r4l// /
*L810
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788
EDWARD J. PETROU, P.E. - JOHN B. DALY
REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER
March 9, 1995
Honorable Thomas H. Wickham
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Wickham:
Aviation Grant Program
Contract Freeze
This is to alert your office that all grant and contractual items before the
State Comptroller have been frozen and no more will be acted upon until the
freeze is lifted.
This will have an adverse effect on the timing of the associated payments due for
grants/contracts. It appears that payments will be allowed in thoses cases where
the grants and associated expenditure contracts have already been approved.
If you have any questions, please call Josephine Brazier at (516) 952-6108.
Very truly yours,
'5 -, r -k
CRAIG SIRACUSA
Regional Planning & Program Manager
CBS
Engineers, Inc.
1099 Airport Boulevard, North Syracuse, New York 13212
(315) 455-2000 Fax: (315) 455-9667
December 15, 1994
Ms. Judith Terry
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road, PO Box 117
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Terry:
Looking back over 1994, we have seen a year of significant change ... new leadership, new economics,
and new challenges in doing business. We take this opportunity during this Holiday Season to thank you,
our customer, for helping to make this year's growth possible, and to reflect on events that shape the
future of C&S Engineers, Inc. Here are some important changes from 1994 that continue to focus the
company's attention on its mission, exceeding customer expectations:
We learned new ways of helping our clients. This year we launched a client partnering process,
an outcropping of our three-year-old Total Quality efforts, that encourages open communication
among all project team members and focuses people's attention on getting the job done right the
first time. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the process, and we implemented its
use with the New York State Department of Transportation. Due to the success of our partnering
efforts this year, we were invited this fall to make a formal presentation of our experiences at the
American Consulting Engineers Council national symposium on Partnering in Atlanta.
Perhaps the most visible change in 1994 is the reunion of our Syracuse staff into a new state-of-
the-art engineering facility. After more than a decade of effort, we occupied our new office in
November. The facility, located at the entrance to Syracuse Airport, consolidates all Central
New York staff. The new environment streamlines communication, improves coordination and
the efficiency of work activity, provides for a professional atmosphere, and significantly reduces
our net operating costs. We're thrilled with the results and welcome you to a tour.
Thank you again for your support and encouragement over the past year. On behalf of myself and all
of us at C&S Engineers, Inc., thank you for being our customer. We look forward to many more years
working together, and wish you the very best during this Holiday Season.
Happy Holidays!
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
ripm__
Orrin B. MacMurray, P.E.
President
December 14, 1994
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
Manager
Fishers Island Ferry District
P.O. Box H
Fisher Island, New York 06390
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
FY "95" FAA Programming Meeting
File: 211
Dear Mr. Knauff:
Engineers, Inc.
1099 Airport Boulevard, North Syracuse, New York 13212
1315) 455-2000 Fax (315) 455-9667
RECEIVlp
UEC 16 1994
fpm
'hold
Twice each year, C&S Engineers, Inc. meets with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York
Airports District Office (NYADO) staff, in Valley Stream, New York, to discuss the status of current
projects and funding potential of future projects at our client airports. This fall's meeting was held on
October 27, 1994. The following is a summary of the discussion regarding Elizabeth Field Airport:
Phil Brito, Manager of NYADO, indicated that discretionary dollars (includes reliever and
commercial service airport funds) will be allocated differently than in past years. The NYADO
must submit candidate projects for discretionary funding to the Region and Washington. The
projects are prioritized by Washington on a national basis, and funds are provided on those
projects receiving the highest priority rating. The NYADO codes the projects based upon the size
of airport and type of project. The NYADO has no control beyond the coding process on what
priority a project will have. As a result their office has lost control of directing discretionary
dollars to airports within their service area. Fiscal Year 1994 was the first year that this priority
system was utilized to allocate discretionary funds, and based upon the 1994 results, obstruction
removal and pavement rehabilitation projects appeared to score a higher priority than other types
of projects such as expansion of airfieldpavements. The NYADO continues to retain control over
state apportionment monies provided to general aviation airports and entitlements at primary
airports.
In addition to the difference in the process for distributing discretionary dollars, it was also
necessary for the FAA to reduce enplanements at all airports by 24% to meet the requirements
of the new legislation. As a result the 1995 entitlement dollars are significantly lower than in
past years.
The FAA does not intend to program any projects at Fisher's Island this Fiscal Year. The FAA
offered and the Town declined to accept a grant for the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) this past year (Fiscal Year 1994). C&S will be contacting you to discuss what,
if any development the Town may desire to be performed in the future.
1t
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
December 14, 1994
Page 2
We are available at your convenience to meet with you to discuss the results of our FAA programming
meeting and the Town's desires to pursue funding for development at the Elizabeth Field Airport.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (315) 455-2000, ext. 131.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
9. z,�
d/41/ -
Bruce W. Clark, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
BWC:kak
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Thomas Wickham, Supervisor
I*
L
IDA
Joseph Del Balm Associates
Tr
955 LT-nfant Plaza N, SW, Suite 4000 4 Washington, DC 20024
Phone (202) 6518001 # Fax (202) 6518002
September 23, 1994
Mr. Thomas Whitcomb
Superintendent, Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Whitcomb:
This will confirm your telephone conversation on September 21, with William Handel relating to the
establishment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) approach to Elizabeth Field on Fisher Island.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has authorized the establishment of straight -in GPS
approaches with minimums as low as 250 feet to all airports throughout the United States. The
approaches are based on a recently completed constellation of twenty-four satellites placed in orbit
by the U.S. Department of Defense. The satellites are high enough that they can avoid the problems
encountered by land based systems and they use a technology accurate enough to give pinpoint
positions anywhere in the world, 24 hours a day. A straight -in GPS to Elizabeth Field would be a
major improvement over the current approach procedure to the airport with circling minimums of 500
feet.
Requests to FAA from airports for these approaches are likely to exceed 20,000. Obviously, the FAA
cannot immediately handle this magnitude of workload and it will be years before a dent is made in
this backlog. Recent estimates indicate that FAA can only accomplish about 500 procedures a year.
To date, the FAA has completed only three stand-alone straight -in GPS procedures (Denton, TX,
Frederick, MD, Oshkosh, WI). This statement is not made in any derogatory sense, only as a
recognition of other FAA priorities and staffing limitations.
JDA has established a process by which we will accomplish all the work normally done by an FAA
Region (procedure development, charting, environmental process, etc.) leaving only a final
environmental decision and flight check for the FAA.
Our time estimate to complete this part of the project would be three to six months at a total, one
time cost of less than $2,000.00 based on receipt of 90% Federal AIP funding and 5% state funding.
I have attached brief resumes of the Senior Associates of JDA to give you an indication of the
experience and expertise we would bring to this effort. The senior staff is complemented by technical
and operations experts in the areas of procedure development, environmental assessments, airport
planning and AIP grant applications and processing.
Thomas Whitcomb
September 23, 1994
Page 2
Bill Handel would be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience. He may be reached at
(516) 754-1360.
Sincerely,
UO
SP
a
Key Personnel
Joseph Del Balzo Associates
Joseph M. Del Balzo is currently President of Joseph
Del Balzo Associates, a unique company committed to
providing creative aviation systems solutions to industry
and governments worldwide.
Prior to this position he served as the Acting
Administrator and Acting Deputy Administrator of the
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. In these positions
he provided a steady and constant focus on the key issues
and challenges facing FAA and the aviation industry. He
built a clear vision of the agency's future with FAA's
corporate team and developed a strategy for long-term
change that included the development of the fust FAA
Operational Concept for the Year 2010. He was deeply
involved in every important aviation system issue
including: the military airport program; passenger facility
charges; use of airport revenue; introduction of new
technology into the nation's air traffic system; system
safety issues; environmental issues; labor management
issues; technical and management training; airport
security; and executive development.
Mr. Del Balzo also served as FAA's Executive Director
for System Operations where he led an organization
responsible for: installing, operating and maintaining all
air traffic control systems on or off airports; developing
as well as overseeing safety regulations for all aircraft,
airlines and airmen in the U.S. system; and ensuring
sufficient capacity to meet the demands of system users.
As FAA Executive Director for System Development,
Mr. Del Balzo developed long-range research and
development programs to support the timely introduction
of new technology into the U.S. air traffic control system;
upgraded the quality of the FAA's program management
system and the qualifications of program managers in
charge of the thirty billion dollar airspace modernization
program; refocussed FAA initiatives to increase capacity
at U.S. airports; and established close working
relationships with the members of the U.S. aviation
community in developing system requirements for the
twenty-first century.
Mr. Del Balzo, an instrument -rated pilot, holds
engineering degrees from Manhattan College and Drexel
University, a certificate in Organizational Development
from the New School and an Honorary Doctor of Science
from Embry -Riddle Aeronautical University.
William Handel: Recently completed a thirty-six year
career with the FAA in both its Washington, D.C.
headquarters and as a Regional Administrator in its
Eastern Regional Headquarters at JFK airport. He
directed and coordinated the activities of 5300 employees
in all aspects of aviation management including air
traffic control, flight standards, airports, and airway
facilities. Mr. Handel has held a full spectrum of
engineering and management positions, including
Airports Division Manager in New York City. In this
capacity he managed the region's airport safety and
capacity programs as well as a $150 million Airport
Improvement Grant Program. As Logistics Division
manager, he was responsible for developing contract
specifications as well as overseeing bidding, proposal
evaluation, and technical oversight processes.
Edward M. Kelly: Mr. Kelly has thirty-eight years of
experience with the FAA in a variety of senior executive,
management, and engineering support roles related to
systems maintenance and facility support. He played a
key role in the planning, installation, and modernization
activities supporting the multi -billion dollar FAA Capital
Investment Plan. Mr. Kelly retired from the FAA as the
Deputy Associate Administrator for Airway Facilities
where he directed the activities of a 12,000 person
workforce responsible for ATC facilities construction,
installation and maintenance, and the administration of a
budget in excess of $1.1 billion. During the period
September 1993 -May 1994, He chaired a task force
charged with analyzing options for establishing a new
government corporation for operating and maintaining
the U.S. air traffic control system.
Norbert A. Owens: As FAA Deputy Associate
Administrator for Air Traffic, Mr. Owens was
responsible for the day-to-day management and oversight
of the U.S. national airspace system through an
organization of over 26,000 employees, over 700 field
offices and facilities and a budget in excess of $2 billion.
Mr. Owens also initiated and chaired an FAA
Operational Planning Management Team which
integrated a strategic planning process for all operating
elements of the agency and as a result, developed the first
FAA Operational Concept for the Year 2010 which
defined future agency requirements and the steps needed
to achieve them. Mr. Owens started with the FAA as an
air traffic control specialist and has over 36 years
experience in public management and aviation safety.
4A
O=_CLl1OR
PATRICIA L. ACAMPORA
Assemblywoman 1 st District
Suffolk County
THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK
ALBANY
June 1, 1994
Commissioner John Egan
New York State Department of Transportation
State Campus, Building 5
Albany, New York 12232
Dear Commissioner Egan:
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
Committee on Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse
COMMITTEES
Aging
Codes
Tourism, Arts and
Sports Development
s.
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Town of Southold.
I have recently been made aware of a situation that demands your
immediate attention. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter the
Town of Southold sent me.
It seems the State owes the Town of Southold $68,812. This is
due to several grants that the State approved for improvements at
Elizabeth Field on Fishers Island. I understand the State has
allocated the money but has not issued any payments.
At this time, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me
why the State has been so lax in their accounting procedures to
allow the non-payment of these funds. In addition, I hope you
could have the State issue the payments to the Town of Southold as
soon as possible.
The project numbers in question are:
1) AIP NO. 3-39-0029-30-90
NYS PIN 0913.03
3) AIP NO. 3-39-0029-005-92
NYS PIN 0913.05
5) AIP NO.3-39-0029-07-92
NYS PIN 0913.07
2) AIP NO. 3-39-0029-04-91
NYS PIN 0913.04
4) AIP NO. 3-39-0029-06-92
NYS PIN 0913.06
DISTRICT OFFICE: Peachtree Executive Park, 189 Main Road, Suite C. Riverhead, New York 11901, (516) 727-1363, FAX (516) 369-3869
ALBANY OFFICE: Room 550, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5294, FAX (518) 455-4740
0* Printed on recycled paper.
r
-
o�S�FFot,��oG
JOHN CUSHMAN
C2
co
JEANNE RULAND
Senior Accountant
ACCOUNTING & FINANCE DEPARTMENT
0
Data Control Supervisor
Telephone (516) 765-4333
�i
�Ql
O`.
CENTRAL. DATA PROCESSING
�a
P.O. Box 1179, 53095 blain Road
Fax (516) 765-1823
Southold, New York 11971-0959
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 24, 1994
Honorable Patricia Acampora
Peachtree Executive Park
189 Main Road
Riverhead, NY 11901
Dear Ms. Acampora:
The purpose of this letter is to request assistance in obtaining
several payments totaling $68,812 due the Town from the State
Department of Transportation's Airport Division, one of which dates
back to May, 1991. All of the payments relate to capital grants for
several improvement projects at Elizabeth Field on Fishers Island. It
is my understanding that funds have been allocated and are available;
however, DOT has not released them.
A list of the payments due the Town under the respective grants
is attached. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
John Cushman
Senior Accountant
Asst\
(1,00,
die
�l
> 2e
91994,
414 _
gCAMPOR�
REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR RESOLUTIONS
ACCOMPANYING STATE GRANT AGREEMENTS
FOR AVIATION
1) All grant dollar amounts must be reflected on the resolution
(Total Project Cost, Federal Share, State Share, and Local
Share). The Total Project Cost and State Share figures must
correspond to the State Grant.
2) The project description must correspond to the description as
stated on the State Grant.
3) The resolution must be signed and certified (with either a seal
or notary stamp). At least one resolution must be an original
with original signatures.
' air meed,
g of the Fishers island Ferry District of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
held at the __ (building), is Southold, New York, on the.— day
(month), , (yoai), o'clock P.M.
The meating was called to order by (Title & Name),
_T'
n roll being called, the following were
,
PRESENT:
The following resolution was offered by _ who
(Title & Name)
moved, its adoption secondees by
(Title & Name)
WHEREAS application for available Federal funding for the
(Project Description) at the '.has been approved, and
WHEREAS the project has been dEemed consistent with sound transportation development policy
and planning concepts for New Yurk State participation.
� yob', 907
WHEREAS. the federal share of the grant amounts to i459,720, the State share amounts to
$38,310, the local share amounts to $12 770 for a total amount of $510,800,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Southold entry into an Agreement with New
York State Department of Transportation. for financial assistance, not to exceed 138,310, State
PIN No. 0913.05, for the
(Project Description) at the Elizabeth Field Airport, and
BE IT FUR HER RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor be authorized to execute documents
on behalf of the Town of Southold.
Questions of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which
resulted as follows:
Voting (Aye or Nay)
Affix Stamp or Seal
42IRY
OF VITAL STATISTICS
MAGE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING' RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 6, 1993; AT
7:30 P.M., AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK:
The meeting was called to order by Supervisor Scott L. Harris, and upon roll
being called, the following were present:
Present: Supervisor Scott L.
Harris
Justice Raymond W.
Edwards
Councilman George
L. Penny IV
Councilman Thomas
H. Wickham
Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski
Councilwoman Alice
J. Hussie
The following resolution was offered by Justice Edwards who moved its
adoption, seconded by Councilman Wickham,
WHEREAS, application for available Federal Funding to install new medium intensity
runway lighting system on Runways 12-30 and 7-25; install rotating beacon and wind
cone; install VAST and REILS on Runways 7, 25, 12 and 30; install electrical vault,
at Elizabeth Field Airport', Fishers Island, New York, has been approved; and
WHEREAS, the project has been deemed consistent with sound transportation
development policy and planning concepts for New York State participation; and
WHEREAS, the Federal share of the grant amounts to $459,720.00, the State Share
amounts to $38,310.00, the Local share amounts to $12,770.00, for a Total Project
amount of $510,800.00; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby • authorizes and
directs Supervisor Harris to execute the New York State Department of
Transportation, Aviation Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal Project Grant
Agreement, for financial assistance not to exceed $38,310.00 (State PIN No. 0913.05),
and the SEQR Agency Compliance Statement for said project which is described as
follows: Install new medium intensity runway lighting system on Runways 12-30 and
7-25; install rotating beacon and wind cone; install VASI and REILS on Runways -
7, 25, 12 and 30; install electrical vault, at the Elizabeth Field Airport, Fishers
Island, New York.
Question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows: Ayes: Supervisor Harris, Justice Edwards, Councilman
Penny, Councilman Wickham, Councilman Lizewski, Councilwoman Hussie.
The foregoing resolution amended Resolution No. .4, adopted on February 23, 1993,
by including the Total Project Cost, Federal Share, State Share, Local Share.
a4 Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Cler
April 7, 1993
At a regular meeting of the Town Board o£ the'Town of Massena,
''St. Lawrence County, New 'York; held at tae Town Hall;`:in Massena,
New York,, on the 10th day of June, 1992 at 7:30 o'clo 'k P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Supervisor Duane T. Hazelton,
and upon roll being called, tie following were
.i
)RESNET: supervisor Duane T. Hazelton
Councilman Donald P. Portolese
Councilman Albert N. Nicola
Councilman Rene P. Hart
Councilman Anthony M. Bronchetti
The following resolution was offered by Councilman Bronchetti
who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Portolese
WHEREAS application for available*Federal funding for Rehabilitation
and Lighting for Taxiway A at'the Massena Richards Field Airport has
been approved, and
WHEREAS the project has been deemed consistent with sound trans-
portation development policy and plann.ng concepts for New York State
participation
WHEREAS t:,e federal share of the grant amounts to $423,900,
the State share amounts to $35,325, the local share amounts to
$11,775 for a total amount of S471,000
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Massena enter into an
Agreement with Ne�N York State Department of Transportation for
financial assistance, not to exceed $35,325, State PIN 7902.18, for
preparation of Environmental Assessment for Rehab ilitatlon-and Lighting
for Taxiway A at the Massena Richards.cField Airport; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Supervisor be authorized to
execute documents on behalf of the Town of Massena..
Question of the adoption of. the foregoing resolution was duly
put to a vote on roll call, which resulted 'as. fol lows`l-'""
Supervisor' Hazelton. Voting `Aye';.;=
Councilman Portolese:.` Voting Aye
Councilman Nicola Voting`Aye
;TATE OF NEW YORK
:ounty of St. Lawrence, ss:
"own of Massena
hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original Town Board Resolution
.agreement with NYS Dept: of Transportation for 535,325 (State:.PIN 7902.18)
;fated June 10, 1992'
Jn file in this office and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
.,hole of said original,
n witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office, at Massena,
Jew York, this -7 da,,
COUNTY OF ALBANY
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
MICHAEL J. HOBLOCK, JR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Ms. Elizabeth Field
(Southold/Fishers Island)
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Field:
112 STATE STREET
BANY, NEW YORK 12207
(51 447-7040 - FAX (518) 447-5589
March 19, 1993
RECEIVED
MAR 2 ' 1393
.7Silllilow Thwn r6&
I am writing to bring to your attention the disparities in
funding for State vs. other Municipal Airports as included in
Governor Cuomo's proposed 1993/94 Budget for New York State
Department of Transportation.
As you maybe aware, budget allocations in the past three years
have been overwhelmingly skewed toward State-owned Stewart and
Republic Airports, (1991/92 - 57%, 1992/19 - 410, and 1993/94 -
73%). The 1993/94 Budget proposal made by the Governor is the most
severe skewing with State allocated airport funds of $10.8 million
for Stewart and Republic, and $4 million for the other 44 Municipal
Airports.
While Stewart and Republic continue to receive a tremendous
amount of capital infusions, other non -state owned airports will
now only receive 50% of the non-federal share, down from 75%. At
the same time New York State Department of Transportation covers
100% of the non-federal share for their two airports regardless of
the funding source.
In a report released by the New York State Comptroller on
August 3, 1992, he publicly stated that the New York State
Department of Transportation engaged in fiscal manipulation by
holding on to every penny it was given to run Stewart and Republic
Airports.
I would strongly urge you to contact your local State
Legislators, Senator Levy - Chairman of the Senate Transportation
Committee, Assemblyman Bragman - Chairman of the Assembly
Transportation Committee, the Commissioner of New York State
Department of Transportation and Governor Cuomo, and stop the
State's attempt to direct Federal Aid to Stewart and Republic by
denying State matching funds to municipal airports.
Please find enclosed some information I hope will be of use to
you.
Sincerely,
jMiMichael J. Hoblock, Jr.
Albany County Executive
MJH:ab: kcb
Enclosure
5 . Jry",. / (� yj�+y:..bb I S jtt+J��.�•i
PIAT: lu ',y3 wt 4:3 Ti -P lir
n
et csday, livcn 1.6. 199 - l u , rmeg ldr gid kit
t P.3
C,. •
rp it war un Ung
A t I.S,,te V.
�.ocal. airfif!�.� executive
der-nands review
did *..
` r� By RODERT FRA; IB ;
�%lC�/ Gt�✓�lf a '; ��j• t :x Starr writer
I;j �i ' EnrAged by an "overwhelming Imbalance" in
atate'A)rpolt funding, the Albany County Execu-
F.y I(01tta1T MAIC tiva has dentauded a thorough review o:
ctefl Writer � +. k ' Stewart's finanees.
y'l•EWAlt'f A11tPOR '11,r tv o' 14 a tetter ohtain-d by The Pines Hereld-nec-
state•owned A1rpovit = Stewart b tcrllo• 8 :di ' 3 r'
A ; ;, t, e' • " ord Albany County Executive Michael J. HOblcck
I nil And Republic are r(ceit,nr hh ,j , +, Lott{ Frank While, the stnte'li depart.16g transpur-
11 n•s RhAto of ,tale finds whilot , re " '' pk'r� „ ' l *! �';k , `t ,' tatioll eornmlaaloner,'that Albany County Airport
of tl,e. New Yolk 'AIr .arts ai c sc, ,ph,3 Ry �,•,�c' 4v S r +1r r ��t ,,..'
s 1sultorSng at the expense of Stewart and Re uh
for ca=11• A.•cording 10 , t:oral amp, rt i•t t, d �ti' " i • �•:'ay 1 L,y Y� Ile. Ile cald the AL -Ste !s alving preferential treat-
mAnal �' meat to the two airports ocause It owns them.
State bud rt ducvttrcnU uhu;v Kep: r =, f 1 w
r 8 b � fit• Albany has a puttcular lrilere..r
t in the budget•
r, In I,Orq lspmd, and Stewart ars uJ Ing .since it competes willt Stewart for
grled to reculve 410.8 u,tlllon lfonr thH ; >{ d •else , �+
state thin f'raeal year while.thu 14 1",;%1;�� ity :Y ' passengers.
'A8 you are probably aware," Ifoblock wrote In
OlAned ul'pOrta la yew YOrl. will 60t a ff 7.. '', S,•+� S} N t, tits Math 12 1EUcr,- ",li.11tan 'Count has been
combined $4 rutitlon. That means the'two i:' t�,` Pj � ''t �' "71L ti" '•••M° y y
air ort:, ievelve ?3 petcemt Of Ute saute , ` + °" r • '� �•`' having probltnl. getting federal and state fund.
p
} fs
Ing for the Improremen OC Weir airport ... hoa-
(lgldiuQ. S(AmAct, would 4&o.e. a Abedt �'�• d!, ' �•' s
, �+ '+•+ over It appears fromresidinq the govartlor'f bad -
$7.3 IL,llliolm, or $1 poregnt - rf.• `r{ r u7� ! fFYA 11, ti(, . 6r t Fyl� ��?w proposal ,a state-owned airports ICE
h I ggetOat, sta n d it
The IrabalAocta has touch°ed ctr a tierce , es . , . ; +,(t' t =. a +!' - - �--: - flennunt to shi,gar roblerrA'% h funding"
l:.,ttle betw(cn the small but pow•e&;i , l Tho necor4 Ilublock said he was directing h4 staff to
,,
state D,,partrnPnt of Transportr•tion's research the post funding ractices of the Depart.
Avtatian Division, which rues Stewart insides Sldwnrt :'tlrporl,'which'ha: etrriic undbr f?fo for• gaming what focally P g P P
meet of Tramporta Lich, which runs Stewart and
and Republic, and au Irmny. Of aup•:t tuh oirpor1 Aperurots sayis too much state fund?ng., llepttbl)e. He also asked for an Acccunting of the
Owners lhtoughunt New York, current $12.3 mllilau budgeWil for Stewart this
The r,iauagcro say the Avlallar Ulv+• at to tvlth,:,r;mjs l :gu�flti0n4 Last 'week ,• A.4temblyman MiahAel liscal year •-• $10.8 million from the genital fund
slon has an obvious conflict,,f later ?Pt - Tht';tate pt,y; or 3 :P4:retttt oI alt Bragir an, U•Syracasc, a lairnmhn o/ the and $1.5 froth pAsengerlae11l1y fres, i10 wanted
It controls the purse strings for ltSelf c�pilal airport pi r^cls ftp roved by the Mbeanbly llelTrantinoravtlart' Committee.
mmitee. addillolt .l facts on,
and Its c�mpetltors. Airport OwnFrs an: 1 stet l! AvlatiOn '-,411th Arntion: Tht ♦ Ttrowayy' Authority funding. Because the
operatu,A Are demanding that List Raw `. FAA'tmay.•, f'0 pct ^it,'and the airport Now. Yurk City, More hearings are Thcotiwny Authority is spending $15 mullion for a
?lance the loading or give up file w., owmtr':. in most %�sc� a county or town ptanlacd, but a apukesman for the cum. new Stewart. Arca$ rind, llnllork wanL% to know
airports. - pteKs l p the ecce :Hing $ percent,' mittta said the funding Imbalance could how Albany can apply for ahmlfar fvnds to solve
They ssy that ua.h•strappeJ lo,:Al Vaehot. said mu. 'bf the 44 other air prompt new legislation. Its own hoofs probleI111 '
governments, which vivn the other 44 Ports has hod to t.;ru down htdefal fund NYAMA has recommended several ' * Stowart's econcmlo' develoirmatt. Stewart
airports, can't meet their airports •1 ed 1, ,ng because it Ceti :mit come up *With 1119 • ' changes: It said the state should dole out .. Jim recOetd ;340 million In govermuent invest-
nd
But Stewart, one of the state's pc' ece, .S percent match �loleover, he sa14• Limo rte nbl{e and hand he m6ney hot v aCr thnit e iso airportsta menta Hoalock wants a complete list of projects
nomic development projects, hAs tad as Stt++art and Repay le'bmgdgets hasp he . p.alld eoets. .
,lnd)eec supply of each. impact on the fur Qiag ^ fur the • other ; to rt newly 'created airport authority. ! Accounts of all ultspent money at S(ewart.
"Stewart And Repabllc dont how, ally airports. NYAMA also said thi state should c^eite fn a bixnrrt' twisk, I1OAlock suggested ilwt
financial restratuts." said Thn Neubert, ; ; -Ch4r); . Fcntlonu l,ml 'pronilse ' is l,oi sportagon ton undMmdng tierivnCy) from
Albany County be turned overt o the state, since
erersurer o1 the New 's l k Airport Dian• .A erred;' Vart:ad , u 1. 'Phe mottoy. that the petroleum bmulness tax. Money for lundl gs Mosttl airport, Including Albany,m have
gers AssoctatSon "It's like they ha:a a ips to Slew ut an•l nt sale would not all tilt 3fattvupaurlcd alrporls would
eery genttuus gudpttremt." o het tw!;e 11� milat y Acallat'1C to those come out of the hod. rocettuy mude Wb to become private,
'file stato said the elasms aro raislOad• other ailpotl , . "Unless 010 explanation you provide ludicatts
)n . Fussell a. Vachon, director of the state .en Wlu,atn J. I, rk1n, it New othucwice • he uloced lire lot t, "Albsny County
Aviation ph9slon, raid the deyartrnsnt aCa<e o� the air i ctematrh l0 5 percent Wiv4)r, . coun..orcd that the fun4ing wllI have to join wlth other r' unlcSpal airports
given the utile[ 44 airports Colt the P ' should stay lila wayit. I:,
6 tr..tu; i.U''txecrnmt. Airport,,omfnets. corn• (non state owned) tO petitlon.tlie,tederal govern -
money they'va •ankred for. He d pf,ln that while t), = "IA hang torccd W l .,` 14n Aot embarrawWd at all by the mast. to stop what Apjiears to be an attempt by
Stewart and Republic noEd rho rnon-�y plck up more'of ;nu iab,'Slewait and tM,dNA Mjections,'14gAJd,"SitWart12 the state w direct fedeial ,id to Stewart and
for envleonmental clean-ups And other R?(rubilr_ still get thA' lull l0 pPtyeui , LI its Minty ... on.Ineubitdon perlod„ I Republic by deayingg state matching funds W
projects to keep the airports In eompq• sloth. It ; It sleds til d,e mores it , a Albany County and other nmulclpal airports."
t r . , t
41S4 ,`
1�2ay
It
t
/7 .A113
x3 �i �4 1 P l i) dK iq try t- 7 i i
It1k i• .I i# . 1 d"'' 1 e yt r e t at j+l y
a iJly'((1 ; � , � e� � �: Si y+,"a r�,Lf'�+ ��f q • z . ,
ial.y yr 1 t1 Ir
� �, r1•
iki
i t •I
>� za'�dFA1{[
,a t• ^�; r t
f i,• �, f- a , t• ,A a 1 F'S
1993 Legislative Conference
Resolution 1114
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EQUAL DISTR.B UTION OF Ti:1EN MOPP IES C.<<
TIM 1967 AZRFORT BOND ACT
IVIIER AS, all of the 1967 Airport Bond Act monies were to be distributed equally amongst
all airports in New I'orlt State and administered by the New I'orh State Department of
Transportation; and
WHEREAS, current available public information indicates that there are uncornrnitled fiords
available from the 1967 Airport Bond Act made for Stewart and Reperblic 1lirports in State fiscal
Year 1991-92; and
WIMM AS, the New Yorh State Comptroller has publicly found that the New fork State
Department of Transportation engaged in fiscal manipulation to retain certain monies earmarked
for Stewart and Republic Airports; and
WIIERI;AS, the New York State Department of Transportation couers 100 percent of the non-
federal share of their two airports regardless of the funding source, while the other non -state owned
airports receive 50 percent of the non-federal share, down from 75 percent; and
WILMEAS, the last three budget years have been overwhelmingly skewed towards the state
owned airports: 1991-92, 57 percent of airport funding; 1992-93, 41 percent of airport funding
and proposed for 1993-94, 73 percent of airport funding; and
WHEIR !,M, state contracts for airport malching grants require that slate aircraft be allowed
free and unlimited access to local government airport facilities at any time; arid
WBEREAS, the New Yorh Slate Association of Counties makes the following
recommendations:
L All categories of airports should be allowed equal access to arty residual funds which
may be available from the original 1967 Airport .Bond Act monies allocated to state owned airports;
II. New Yorh State Department of Transportation should furnish an accounting of how all
Bond fund accounts and appropriations, and any other monies appropriated for capital projects,
have been disposed to state owned airports and whether there are any uncornrnitled balances;
III. Full restoration of the 75 percent state match for the non federal share of FArWUP
Grants regardless of the funding source;
N. Revise existing budget language to include stale funding allocations for federal eligible
projects funded 100 percent by passenger facility charges;
NOW,, THEF.EFORE, B2; IT RESOLVED, New Yoriz State should invest 171 -C in all airporis
in New Yorh State to stimulate local economies, corn nnernsurate with the leuels historically afforded
to state airports; and
BE IT FUIITIIER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Gouernor
Dlario Al. Cuomo, all members of the New York State Legislature, the Federal Aviation
Administration, State Transportation Commissioner and all others deemed necessary and proper.
a
MICIIAEL I. I IOBLOCK, IR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY OF ALBANY
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
112 STATE STREET
ALBANY, NEw YoRx 12207
(518) 447-7040 - FAx (518) 447-5589
March 12, 1993
Frank White, Commissioner
New York State Department of Transportation
State Campus, Bldg. #5
Albany, New York 12232
Dear Commissioner White:
After reviewing the Governor's 1993-94 proposed Budget for the
Department of Transportation, I am writing to get clarification on
a few matters of interest to Albany County.
It appears the State apparently has the capability, and
according to the governor's budget, the funding, to support State
owned airports without any difficulty or funding constraints. As
you are probably aware, Albany County has been having problems
getting Federal and State funding for the improvement of their
airport. Albany County Airport is also facing the issue of
improving access roads to the airport without funding, however, it
appears from reading the Governor's Budget proposal that State
owned airports are immune to similar problems with funding.
In the 1993-94 Executive Budget Briefing Book on page 91, the
$12.3 million allocated for "State -Owned" airports is identified as
matching Federal Aid and is also to be used to fund infrastructure
improvements at Stewart and Republic Airports. This could lead me
to believe that you could be receiving approximately $110.7 million
in Federal grants for these two airports. Would you please
identify the projects and the total project cost that this
allocation is intended to cover for both the intended Federal
drawdown and infrastructure improvements?
Also on page 91, the Thruway Authority is providing
approximately $15 million for improved access to Stewart Airport.
Given that the Thruway Authority and New York State Department of
Transportation are independent agencies, what is the application
process for funding of this nature and when can Albany County
expect similar funding for access improvements to our airport?
In the 1993-94 Annual Message, on page M55, "Economic
Development at Stewart Airport". More than $340 million has been
invested in Stewart Airport, could you please list the capital
projects and their costs as well as the funding sources for each?
The Annual Message also referred to $10 million in State funds to
be used to match $18 million in Federal aid. At a 10% match, the
State's share of $18 million in Federal aid is approximately $2
million. Please explain why there is $8 million more than is
necessary for the Federal match, and what the $8 million will
actually be used for.
Please explain the following capital projects in the Capital
Projects Budget Bill and the justification for the allocations of
these monies to Stewart Airport and list the actual capital
projects to be funded with these monies.
Page & Line No.'s
93 - 33
94 - 7
94 - 15
Monetary Amount
8,495,000
1,485,000
800,000
Also please identify the following reappropriations and
explain the reasoning for directing all such monies to Stewart
Airport and provide a list of the capital. projects that are
currently in progress, encumbered or planned to be funded with
these monies. In addition, please identify any monies that are
uncommitted at this time.
Page & Line No.'s
Monetary Amount
646 -
46
5,000,000
647 -
31
3,500,000
726 -
47
533,000
728 -
19
921,000
731 -
19
746,000
732 -
18
82,000
735 -
31
1, 649,000
736 -
43
11,752,000
737 -
10
. 6, 667, 000
737 -
37
40,000,000
738 -
12
17,615,000
738 -
35
2,481,000
739 -
15
89,000
739
- 36
12,300,000
739
- 46
5,000,000
740
- 35
2,805,000
The overwhelming imbalance in the upcoming budget has prompted me
to direct my staff to research NYS DOT's funding practices in prior
years. In particular, the 1991/92 budget allocates $6.7 million in
1967 bond funds to State-owned airports. It is my understanding
that those bond funds are restricted for.use in accessing Federal
aid. However, FAA records show that capital projects requiring
only $2.2 million in state match were awarded during that time.
Please identify, in detail, how the remaining $4.5 million was
spent and whether or not any of those funds remain uncommitted.
I
In addition, it is unclear whether the 1967
allow a 100% State match, given that the Act
airports without distinction, the disparity in the
seems contrary to the intent of the Acta
Bond Act would
applies to all
matching shares
Despite your Department's response to similar queries last
year, it appears that ALL of the allocation to State owned airports
in the 1992/93 budget were represented as State matching funds to
access Federal aid. Once again,. FAA records for that year show
that only $500,000 in State funds were required to match Federal
grants. Assuming that the Budget Director reappropriated the
remaining $4.6 million to cover "other ineligible local projects,"
please provide a list of those projects and identify whether or not
any funds remain uncommitted.
It appears that the Albany County Airport and other municipal
airports in New York State are being short-changed for the benefit
of Stewart and Republic Airports, which are State owned. I would
have to assume that the Albany County Airport would need to be
State owned and operated facility to be treated in a fair and
equitable manner by New York State. Unless the explanation you
provide indicates otherwise, Albany County will have to join with
other municipal airports (non -State owned) to petition the Federal
Government to stop,what appears to be an attempt by the State to
direct Federal aid to Stewart and Republic by denying State
matching funds to Albany County and other municipal airports.
I eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely,
f�
Michael Hoblock, Jr.
Albany County Executive
MJH:kcb
cc: Assemblyman Bragman
Senator Levy
Governor Cuomo
'Albany, N.Y., Friday, March 19,1993. ' TIMES UNION B-5
ALBANY COUNTY
Continua from B-1- -
-.,
i
kARPORTe.Ho040� seeks morestate aid
Hoblock's letter is not the only
projects at airports — which include Republic. ing, and whatever is left comes from
criticism of Cuomo's proposed avia-
construction of air traffic control Ron Rock, transportation adviser the users (mostly airlines)," Hoblock
tion_ budget by, municipal airport
towers or new terminali, road -con- to Cuomo,'said that policy is justi- said.'
-
interests to surface recently.*,
stru cdoin, and other physical - im- Sed because- the state, plays two "'They aren't doing that at Stew -
Last week, the New York Airport
provements =comes from the Fed- separate roles mi the operation of art, which makes it a more attractive
Managers Association attacked
eral Aviation Administration. Stewart and Republicifacility for airlines. They're taking
what it sees as the state'sfavoritism
Itis the state providerand it is the state reiouresourcesand 'tax'payer dollars
::.The FAA anywhe'r'e f ro"m 75
pays
toward Stewart -and Pepx!bli'
percent to 90 percent of capital costs, owner. and competing with us."
quar�lyrei�sletter'.'
"a
depending on'the f -Me fecls have b6en-v e�ry'generous The Airport Managers
W.o prcjeic4
In- an article- -asserting that:
-Associa-
to Stewart in the last few yeiri� and
. For the i;i� airports- must rely on tion takes its criticism a step ftuther.
ate
disproportionate amount of state
we are forced to match federal grants I �
state grants combined with -either of --- - It argues that much of the money
funds" goes to Stewart and Repub-
I
or lose the fedeml matching money, . � .1.
local funds or the fees charged to the state is' using to fund improve -
lie, the- association called for the
.
airlines, passengers and other air- Rock said. menta at . Stewart and -Republic
state to redistribute funds that have
'carried
poyt users. - �"If we didn't own, Stewart' and comes'from a 1967 bond act that
*a
been over from the two air-
porW previous. b4dg4s,'as: weU^ as
Republic., it, would. be differen
state provided Enunicipal air- called for all airports in the state.W
story.
oomponen mt
cmate;a]6 aviation" 6fi"t in- he
percent nbenefit
Oorbi -with 75 t of this f" on obl Ahe state's-'
��]H ock,that.
state's�' dedicated 'tra�nsp6Akion
r
fedeiaVshare'!-of capital improve�;. "at, ivision's also - opposes
Aviation Di
years:Ts-:r
ment projedi f6r many equires municipal
FAA grants at Stewart and Republic -s&Ae_�olicj.tih_at r-
Pnmarily 0
-91 t Ruming
U in" 992," thestate- iif-thiliime!iaW�- -It:inatchet. airpa
Fg-min' '_ -'i'6tN,L" ot&d-1 pp
only airports' state -
theitate's aviation budget
rinfof thai grants other L'.-,'.,f,.befbie* get
P.aym-g,q Y50P61gran4_-iVUe.'
asi&k�CiviWP,
.4�_;
leftover Cost to -;Stewart
Muni fund =Pdr;- expansion, we and Republic &- not -hWe
- . - s
";
'Mostof the money for such capital
.
It pays. 100 percentjo Stewart and quim d -I. - Aa state requirement.
funding and state fun
co 4-01 9 W.
>
, '0
g:4 -co > -
7,15 jr
CO I—E
d.',S� - .. V. to to
Q) 4) . - — , I
>
Cq, - - 4.-7�. 1 �:_
to = . - z .5: -0 -0
;.1 r CD
-Z CO. CO-, bQ �—O
(C.0; �—r.
9.
co
7-- 01-- Go
�_W
IV
b1l Z .0 .4, W
03,
cc _z;3 .0
o - bQ Z,
OA �04 W_ -0
cu g -. -� —
-Eb . . - coo
Cd
ID dam. cc, g.'bi
0 -OD -�� I " � U)
U
C5 & * 2
O_.. .. = 4) " .5 :P t �5 I co 0.==
r
cc W
O _-- - r--._ W—••��•- ��m•o� �>,'Q�Q..m..�cCC5 -i~ OG '8; 0 Cn =
rm W._O_ 0
k..Q.9
R
J0. 4 0 0
2 ca
-on -s:' Co.,-= 9
M cc '20 bb 0
82, .9 96 f.§,
S
0
_.-5. 0
Os cc E!
- �2 - EJ gb W �A A* Cd
5 51 .. 0. V
0 C13 C13 0
E- A _Z r- -:� t
r -.0 8
> 0 U LO
0-4 5 8
Cd 41. A
Go U
go U) °wa! 2
1993 Legislative Conference
Resolution l/14
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EQUAL DISTRL3UTION OFT11L'.,'"u S C',
TILL 1967 AMFORT BOND ACT
IVIINREAS, all of file 1967 Airport Bond Act monies were to be distributed equally amongst
all airports in New I'orl, State and administered by the New I orh State Department of
Transportation; and
jYIiEREAS, current auailable public information indicates that there are uncommitted fiords
available from the 1967 Airport Bond Act made for Stewart and Republic Airports in State Fiscal
Year 1991-92; and
WJIERM, JS, the New York State Comptroller has publicly found that the New York State
Department of Transportation engaged in fiscal manipulation to retain certain monies earmarked
for Stewart and Republic Airports; arid
WILE, RE,AS, the New York State Department of Transportation covers 100 percent of the non-
federal share of their two airports regardless of the funding source, while the other non -state owned
airports receive 50 percent of the non-federal share, down from 75 percent; and
WHEREAS, the last three budget years have beer, overwhelmingly sketved towards the state
owned airports: 1991-92, 57 percent of airport funding; 1992.93, 41 percent of airport funding
and proposed for 1993-94, 73 percent of airport funding; and
rWHEI SAS, stale contracts for airport matching grants require that state aircraft be allowed
free and unlimited access to local government airport facilities at any time; and
VUIEREAS, the New York State Association of Counties makes tine following
recommendations:
L All categories of airports should be allowed equal access to any residual fiends which
may be available from the original 1967 Airport Bond Act monies allocated to state owned airports;
II. New Yorh State Department of Transportation should furnish an accounting of how all
Bond fund accounts and appropriations, and any other monies appropriated for capital projects,
have been disposed to state owned airports and whether there are any uncommitted balances;
III. Full restoration of the 75 percent state match for the not federal share of FA1J.IUP
Grants regardless of the funding source;
IV. Revise existing budget language to include slate funding allocutions for federal eligible
projects funded 100 percent by passenger facility charges;
NOW, THE, RE,FORE, BE IT RESOL SD, New York Stale should invest more in all airporis
in New Yorh State to stimulate local economies, corrunensurate will, the levels historically afforded
to state airports; and
BE IT =, 7'IZER RESOLVED that topics of this resolution be foruvar-ded to Governor
Mario M. Cuomo, all members of tine New Yorh Slate Legislature, the Federal Auiation
Administration, State Transportation Commissioner and all others deemed necessary and proper.
December 14, 1992
Engineers, Inc.
1020 Seventh North Street, Liverpool, New York 13088-6199
(315) 457-6711 Fax (315) 457-9803
RECEIVED
Town of Southold
Mr. Scott L. Harris DEC 3 q 1992
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179 Cr„ ,}hnl. T r, -1—Ir
Southold NY 11971
I:N: E5f CalUCixinos a ;Pima Engineers, P.C., into and with C&S Engineers, Inc.
Dear Mr. Harris:
We are pleased to announce that Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C., has recently merged with and into
C&S Engineers, Inc., with C&S Engineers, Inc., the surviving corporation. The merger was effective
December 14, 1992.
This merger is pursuant to a recent amendment to New York State's Business Corporation Law.
Specifically, Section 1513 of the Business Corporation Law was amended to allow the merger of a
professional corporation with and into a chartered corporation authorized to provide professional
engineering services in the State of New York. C&S Engineers, Inc., is such a charter corporation.
The charter for C&S Engineers, Inc., has been in existence since 1929 and has been owned and operated
by the same individuals owning and operating Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C., since 1985. To
eliminate the administrative burden associated with the operation of two corporate entities and for other
business reasons, the directors felt it best to merge and operate as one.
Pursuant to the merger, C&S Engineers, Inc., will carry on the business of Calocerinos & Spina
Engineers P.C., without interruption. There has been and will be no personnel changes, management
reorganization, or other noticeable difference in the day to day handling of your project. The only
I11--
noticeable outward indication of the T,araPr u��'
_ 41.E
Engineers, P.C., to C&S Engineers, Inc.
As of this date forward, all dealings with our company, including invoices, statements, reports, plans,
and specifications will be under the name C&S Engineers, Inc. In light of the plan of merger and
assumption of obligations, contracts, and liabilities, there is no need for C&S Engineers, Inc., to
individually assume each contractual obligation of Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C. Should you have
any questions regarding our merger, please feel free to contact me or our General Counsel,
Anthony M. D'Eredita.
Very truly yours,
C&S ENGINEERS, INC.
Orrin B. MacMurr , E.
Executive Vic esident
OBM:lbh
C16s,
Calocerinos & Spina
Engineers, P.C.
December 9, 1992
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
Manager
Fisher's Island Ferry District
P.O. Box H
Fisher's Island, New York 06390
RECEIVED
DEC 11 1992
Re: Fishers Island -Elizabeth Field
File: 211
Dear Mr. Knauff:
We are writing today to alert you that New York State matching grant offers for FY 92 projects
are expected to be mailed to your municipality before January 1, 1993. The grant will need to be
accepted and returned to the State Department of Transportation with copies of a resolution authorizing
acceptance.
The state has recently notified us that historically many of the resolutions which are being
returned with signed grants are not acceptable to the NYSDOT Comptroller's Office.
For your convenience we have enclosed a copy of the letter written by the state outlining the
details which they wish to see in each resolution. We have also provided a sample resolution for each
of the state grants you should be receiving. You will notice that some information is still missing, and
will need to be completed by the municipality. Also, I recommend that you compare the state grant
amount stated in the sample to the actual grant documents. We have not filled in the project description
for you because the state has requested that the description be copied exactly as written in the grant
documents.
We are hoping that the enclosed information will help eliminate some of the problems which
delay state grant funds.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us at
(315) 455-7981.
Very truly yours,
CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS, P.C.
Sheila M. Farley
Grants Administrator
SMF:cb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Soctt L. Harris
1020 Seventh North Street, Liverpool, NY 13088-6199 (315) 457-6711 FAX (315) 457-9803
w
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788
JAMES A. KUZLOSKI
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
October 14, 1992
Honorable Scott L. Harris
Supervisor
Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Harris:
FRANKLIN E. WHITE
COMMISSIONER
Required Elements for Resolutions
Accompanying Aviation State Grant
Agreements
Recently we have had a considerable number of aviation grant agreements
authorizing resolutions returned by the State Comptroller's Office to the
local municipality for correction. To avoid confusion and delays in
processing future grants, attached is a Department of Transportation
memorandum dated September 15, 1992 specifying the required elements for an
aviation State Grant Resolution.
A sample resolution passed by the Town of Massena has also been enclosed.
This is a good example of the type of resolution which is acceptable to the
State Comptroller's office.
The resolution must be signed and certified with either a seal or notary
stamp.
Very truly yours,
/� ✓ JOHN A. FAI,OTICO
Planning & Program Management
Director
Attachment
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�_''�r,= P. �D7
SEP-1E-139_1-1��h FFi �r� OBC- SURE:=�iJ OF hCCTS. TO �
1,
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO: Roger Sisaillion, State Comptroller's office,
Alfred E. Smith Office Bldg., 7th Floor
FROM: Denise E. Hogan, Aviation Dev. & P1., 4-154a�
SUBJECT: REQUIRED ELEXENTS FOR RESOLUTIONS ACCOMPANYING
STATE GRANT AGREEMENTS FOR AVIATION
DATE: September 15, 1992
Per our recent meeting regarding the above subject, we
wish to verify the requirements as requested by your
office.
1) All grant dollar amounts must be reflected on the
resolution (Total Project Cost; Federal Share; State
Share and Local Share). The Total Project Cost and State
Share figures must correspond to the State Grant,
2) The project description must correspond to the
description as stated on the State Grant,
3) The resolution must be signed and certified (with
either s seal or notary stamp). At least one resolution
must be an original with original signatures.
DEH/ibm
c r
AQ OVE w 19,2
foR SHE STATE COMFIROl1fR
At a rea lar meet-.Jng o. -L: the Town Board of _.ne Town- H
n�JrarCaJC.JI:n=V, Need York, held a= e Town dal!, _i:C`�asc2�2n a/
-i
New '1or:c, on =.=e ilj=1 day of vune, 199.2 ,3= 7:20 o'clock ?. .m.
T_:e mee=-nc was called _c order ^:; Su-erv__cr Duane T. . Ha_a__=r.
and ucon rc 11 bc_ ?C cs! led, =o 1 low- na TNe_ _
PRESNET . Cucervisor Duane T.
Counc_lman Donald P. Por_olese
Counc-ilman Aber-_ I.N . I1_colc
CcunC_lman Rene P. Far_
Courcilmar. Ant^onv M. Bronchett_
The foIIcw:.nq =eso1u_.on was of`ered by Counc_1man 3r•:ncze_._
wto moved _LS adoC_:.on, seconded 'v Counc-ilman PCr_ol se
WH=RETS apol_ca__cn for avaylable F ec=_r__ ..und_nc =cr
and L1Cil1:_nc for 'Tax wadi A a-,- _he Mas =e.^.a R_char :s = _--l.d ?%_r^.v^r =
:ate
been approved, and
NHEPIAG _ae Cro j eC= has bean deemed CorS_- s -_a - w'_'th sound -_
nS-
por _ton develC:me^= Co! _c'i and C1 ai+?^._:'.c concepl:S =J= New `jCr.,<
para__on
W::LRE .. = ederc_ =-:.ar = o= .::= _ _ _.. = amour._ _c S =_; , 900 ,
_ e S _.:.-e share amour._5 _o "1 25 , _..- _ocaI s%_r_ ,=:Tioun_S =^.
S11,775 for a to_a_ amoun_ c= S-7_,000
TH_RE"TORE B= IT RESOL` EC _ .a = _he m�-,wrof Masse a e^=er _
:._o an
AA ` - _�? New `�or K S t.:_o Depar -me^. - o- T= =nS=or =at-' =C='
r-..^.anc_a_ ass_s__=nce, no _o eitceea S15 25,_: __ PsN :S, -or
_ prepara__on c= rcrmen_-._ AsSeSsme.^._ =or Rehab____3__cn and __c,:_ nc
-7r TasL�'Nay A a_ _.:- i$asSena .._c...__..0 _ _._C. rpC_ an
BE IT.:RT::== RESOLVED _..__ _^e Supe_-r-=_cr be au -r -'-or- -7=e- =o
exec, -,,--e dccumen_s or. behalf c- _.^.e _owr 7L %jascena.
QueS__on of _he aCCD__cn o- _-e-Crsco-.nc _Bsolu__Cn was du l v
Pu,: to a vote on roll call, wt. -ch _=_sul_ed as f..11ows.
STATE OF NEW YORK
County of St. Lawrence,
Town of Massena
SucerV_sor Hazel =oil
Counc--lman Portolese
Counc-Liman v_cola
ss:
Vot_nc Ave
Vol:' -ng Ave
Voting Ave
I hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the originai Town Board Resollst_on
Agreement: :,�-_-� Mys Dep_. C_ T=ansnor=�t_Cn ,_ 335,3255(C_a=e Y_v 7902.1$)
(fated June 10, 1992
Un fiie in this office and that it is a true and correct transcript :her=from, and of the
whoie of said original.
In witness Nhereof, I have nereunt0 set my hand and sea! of office.::: Massena.
view York. C 19 _
York, "M'S
Calocorinos & Spina
Engineers. P.C.
July 21, 1992 2 7�
Mr. R. Philip Knauff
Manager
Fisher's Island ferry District
P.O. Box H
Fisher's Island, New York 06390
Re: Fisher's Island Elizabeth Field
Direct Deposit
File: 211
Dear Mr. Knauff:
Would you like to receive reimbursement for your airport projects within 24 hours after making
a request? The Federal Aviation Administration now has a system which will do exactly that. You no
longer have to wait 3 to 6 weeks for a federal treasury check. You can withdraw your federal grant
funds over the telephone line and funds will be deposited directly into the appropriate bank account.
We are writing today to offer our assistance with making the necessary arrangements to put your
eligible future grants on the Direct Deposit System. The enclosed package provides general information
about how to get started. We will provide whatever assistance you need to get your system up and
running.
We are planning to continue to provide the request forms, calculations, and backup documentation
for your files. One or more authorized individuals within your organization will then be responsible for
making each withdrawal.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to begin making arrangements for this new
withdrawal program.
Very truly yours,
CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS, P.C.
Sheila M. Farley
Grants Administrator `
SMF:cb
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Scott L. Harris (w/encl)
1020 Seventh North Street, Liverpool, NY 13088-6199 (315) 457-6711 FAX (315) 457-9803
■ Grant must be $120,000
(Federal share) or more to be
eligible for direct deposit.
■ Calocerinos & Spina
Engineers has copies of "Direct
Deposit Sign -Up Form" and will
assist with completing the
required information. Authorized
individual must provide signature
and mail to financial institution.
(Copy of form attached)
Direct Deposit Process 4
■ One person must be
authorized by the municipality
to apply for direct deposit
withdrawal system.
...
:.:.:.:
■ Forms are processed by
■ After the grant has been
DHHS and sent to the FAA
accepted by the sponsor and
accounting departmem Kermit
returned to the FAA, funds can be
software, installation instruc-
withdrawn from the Federal
tkxm and the Project
Treasury as project work is
Information Number (PIN) are
accomplished. The requested
mailed directly to the authorized
funds are deposited directly into
individual within the municipality
a municipal bank account within
by the FAA accounting depart-
24 hours of the computerized
ment. (C&S will send a
request.
representative from our com-
puter department to assist with
■ Funds can be withdrawn by
software installation if your office
anyone within the municipality
Is unable to get the system
who has access to the PIN.
running.)
V Once the sponsor has been
accepted into the system, the
direct deposit withdrawal will be
automatically included in'special
conditions of all future federal
grants.
C S
Equipment Requirements
A. Compatible Hardware Systems
Smardink performs with most IBM compatible personal computer systems. Other types of computers
such as Apple's Macintosh with Red Ryder or White Knight software have been reported to work as well.
Minicomputers such as an IBM System 36 or VAX may work; however, support is not available from the
Division of Federal Assistance Financing (DFAFS). If you plan to use a system other than an IBM PC
compatible, check with the equipment manufacturer for proper configuration and compatibility.
B. Modems
A Hayes compatible modem is required to connect with the National Institute of Health (NIH) Computer
Center. Modems rated at 1200 or 2400 baud work well with Smartlink, however, a few users have found
it neceswjy to W- ate at 300 baud to merccxne toch-ucal problems. Therefore, I a ne,y un is to be
purchased we recommend the software switchable 300/1200/2400 modems.
C. Communication Software
Communication software is the program that allows your computer system to communicate with other
computers. To run Smardink II, your software must be configured to emulate a VT100 or VT102 terminal.
The following software packages are a few known to work with Smardink II:
KERMIT (Will be provided by FAA)**
BitCorn (Version 2.6A or higher)
CrossTa/k
Procomm (including Plus)
Smartcom (V2.1 or higher)
The following communication parameters are a requirement of
the NIH Computer Center, and if you use the Quick -Start
procedure this is the default:
**KERMIT (communication software) was originally developed at Columbia University and modified by the
Division of Computer Research and Technology atthe National Institute of Health. The Division of Federal
Assistance Financing (DFAFS) provides KERMIT in an effort to make your setup and access to Smardink
II simple and inexpensive. Communication packages such as those listed above work just as well;
however, some packages do not support cursor addressing as required by Smartlink. DFAFS does not
endorse a particular product, butthe communication software that you select must be Hayes compatible.
The only true test is to try it and see I it works for you.
WASHINGTON. DC 20402 STOCK
NO 048-000.003630
-Standard,Form 1199A
OMB No. 1510-0007
(Rev. June 1997)
Expiration Data 1-31.93
Presorted by Treasury
❑❑11❑❑11110
Treasury Dept. Cir. 1076
�irccr
SIGN-UP FORM
DIRECTIONS
• To sign up for Direct Deposit, the payee is to read the back of this
The claim number and type of payment are printed on Government
form and fill in the information requested in Sections 1 and 2. Then
checks. (See the sample check on the back of this form.) This informa-
take or mall this form to the financial institution. The financial in-
tion is also stated on beneficiary/annuitant award letters and other
stitution will verify the information in Sections 1 and 2, and will com-
documents from the Government agency.
plete Section 3. The completed form will be returned to the Govern-
DATE
ment agency identified below.
Payees must keep the Government agency informed of any address
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
changes in order to receive important information about benefits and
• A separate form must be completed for each type of payment to be
to remain qualified for payments.
sent by Direct Deposit.
B NAME OF PERSON(S) ENTITLED TO PAYMENT
SECTION 1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY PAYEE)
A NAME OF PAYEE (last, fist, middle initial)
D TYPE OF DEPOSITOR ACCOUNT CHECKING aSAVINGS
CHECK
E DEPOSITOR ACCOUNT NUMBER
ADDRESS (street, route, P.O. Box, APO/FPO)
DIGIT
❑❑11❑❑11110
E
DEPOSITOR ACCOUNT TITLE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CERTIFICATION
I confirm the Identity of the above-named payee(s) and the account number and title. As representative of the above-named financial Institution,
I cer
tlfy that the financial Institution agrees to receive and deposit the payment Identified above In accordance with 31 CFR Parts 240, 209, and 210
PRINT- OR TYPE REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME
SIGNATURE OF REPRESENTATIVE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
F TYPE OF PAYMENT (Check only one)
❑ Social Security ❑ Fed Salary/Mil. Civilian Pay
[]Supplemental Security Income ❑ Mil. Active
❑ Railroad Retirement ❑ Mil. Retire.
❑ Civil Service Retirement (OPM) ❑ Mil. Survivor
❑ VA Compensation or Pension ❑ Other
TELEPHONE NUMBER
AREA CODE
B NAME OF PERSON(S) ENTITLED TO PAYMENT
(specify)
C CLAIM OR PAYROLL ID NUMBER
G THIS BOX FOR ALLOTMENT OF PAYMENT ONLY (if applicable)
TYPE
AMOUNT
Prefix Suffix
PAYEEIJOINT PAYEE CERTIFICATION
JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS' CERTIFICATION ioptionall
I certify that I am entitled to the payment identified above, and that I
have read and understood the back of this form. In signing this form, I
I certify that I have read and understood the back of this form, including
the SPECIAL NOTICE TO JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS.
authorize my payment to be sent to the financial institution named
below to be deposited to the designated account.
SIGNATURE
DATE
SIGNATURE
DATE
SIGNATURE
DATE
SIGNATURE
DATE
SECTION 2 (TO BE COMPLETED BY PAYEE OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION)
GOVERNMENT AGENCY NAME GOVERNMENT AGENCY ADDRESS
SECTION 3 (TO BE COMPLETED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
ROUTING NUMBER
CHECK
DIGIT
❑❑11❑❑11110
E
DEPOSITOR ACCOUNT TITLE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CERTIFICATION
I confirm the Identity of the above-named payee(s) and the account number and title. As representative of the above-named financial Institution,
I cer
tlfy that the financial Institution agrees to receive and deposit the payment Identified above In accordance with 31 CFR Parts 240, 209, and 210
PRINT- OR TYPE REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME
SIGNATURE OF REPRESENTATIVE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE
Financial institutions should rear to the GREEN BOOK for further instructions
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SHOULD MAIL THE COMPLETED FORM TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY IDENTIFIED ABOVE.
NSN 7540-01.058-0224 GOVERNMENT AGENCY COPY 119206
FEDERAL CASH TRANSACTIONS REPORT
Approved by Office of Management and Budget. No. 80 -R01e2
1- �ual itted sponsoring agency and Organizational elemeet to which this report
(See instructions on the back. If report is for more than one grant or
assistance agreement, attach completed Standard Form 872—A.)
2. RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION
4. Federal gnat or other identifin- 1 S. Recipient's account number or
tion number Identifying number
Name
6. Letter of credit number 7. Last payment voucher number
Number
and Street
Give total number for this period
S. Payment Vwdm s credited to
your memo
S. Trossury ehects received ( whether
or not deposited)
City.
dy'ZIP Code:
10. PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT
3. FEDERAL EMPLOYER'
IDENTIFICATION NO.
FROM (mrowtA, day, year)
TO (=oath, day year)
a. Cash on hand beginning of reporting period
b. Letter of credit withdrawals
c. Treasury check payments
11. STATUS OF
d. Total receipts (Sum of linea b and c)
FEDERAL
e. Total cash available (Sum of lines a and d)
CASH
f. Gross disbursements
g. Federal share of program income
(See specific
_
instructions
on the back)
h. Net disbursements (Line f minus line g)
i. Adjustments of prior periods
j. Cash on hand and of period
12. THE AMOUNT SHOWN
13. OTHER INFORMATION
ON LINE llj, ABOVE,
REPRESENTS CASH RE'
QUIREMENTS FOR THE
a. Interest income
;
ENSUING
Bays
b. Advances to subgrantees or subcontractors
I
$
14. REMARKS (Attach additional sheets of plain paper, if more space is required)
15. CERTIFICATION
SIGNATURE
I certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that AUTHORIZED
this report is true in all re-
spects and that all disburse- CERTIFYING TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
ments have been made for
the purpose and conditions OFFICIAL
of the grant or agreement
THIS SPACE FOR AGENCY USE
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED
TELEPHONE (Area Code,
Numbcr, Y:rtension )
272- 102 STANDARD FORM 272 (7-76)
Prescribed by Office of Management and Budget
Cir. No. A-110
INSTRUCTIONS
Please type or print legibly. Items 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11d, 11e, 11h, and 15 are self' explanatory, specific
instructions for other items are as follows:
item Entry
3 Enter employer identification number assigned by the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the FICE (institution)
code.
If this report covers more than one grant or other
agreement, leave items 4• and 5 blank and provide the
information on Standard Form 272-A, Report of Fed-
eral Cash Transactions --Continued; otherwise;
4 Enter Federal grant number, agreement number, or
other identifying numbers if requested by sponsoring
agency.
5 This space reserved for an account number or other
identifying number that; may be assigned by the re-
cipient.
6 Enter the letter of credit number that applies to this
report. If all advances were made by Treasury check,
enter "NA" for not applicable and leave items 7 and 8
blank.
7 Enter the voucher number of the last letter -of -credit
payment voucher (Form TUS 5401) that was credited
to your account.
11a Enter the total amount of Federal cash on hand at the
beginning of the reporting period including all of the
Federal funds on deposit, imprest funds, and unde-
posited Treasury checks.
11b Enter total amount of Federal funds received through
payment vouchers (Form TUS 5401) that were cred-
ited to your account during the reporting period.
11c Enter the total amount of all Federal funds received
during the reporting period through Treasury checks,
whether or not deposited.
Entry
Item
emplopee's share of benefits if treated as a direct cost,
interdepartmental charges for supplies and services,
and the amount to which the recipient is entitled for
indirect costs.
11g Enter the Federal share of program income that was
required to be used on the project or program by the
terms of the grantor agreement.
11i Enter the amount of all adjustments pertaining to prior
periods affecting the ending balance that have not
been included in any lines above. Identify each grant or
agreement for which adjustment was made, and enter
an explanation for each adjustment under "Remarks."
Use plain sheets of paper if additional space is required.
11j Enter the total amount of Federal cash on hand at the
end of the reporting period. This amount should include
all funds on deposit, imprest funds, and unde;posited
funds (line e, less line h, plus or minus line i).
12 Enter the estimated number of days until the cash on
hand, shown on line 11j, will be expended. If more than
three days cash regirements are on hand, provide an
explanation under "Remarks" as to why the drawdown
was made prematurely, or other reasons for the excess
cash. The requirement for the explanation does not
apply to prescheduled or automatic advances.
13a Enter the amount of interest earned on advances of
Federal funds but not remitted to the Federal agency.
If this includes any amount earned and not remitted to
the Federal sponsoring agency for over 60 days, explain
under "Remarks." Do not report interest earned on
advances to States.
13b Enter amount of advance to secondary recipients in-
cluded in item 11 h.
11f Enter the total Federal cash disbursements, made 14 In addition to providing explanations as required above,
during the reporting period, including cash received give additional expl: nation deemed necessary by the
as program income. Disbursements as used here also recipient and for information required by the Federal
include the amount of advances and payments less sponsoring agency in compliance with governing legis -
refunds to subgrantees or contractors, the gross lation. Use plain sheets of paper if additional space is
amount of direct salaries and wages, including the required.
eu.S. Government Printing Office: 1989-237-499/00070 STANDARD FORMA 272 (BACK) (7-70)
0 -
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
APR v 1992
1Q
Mr. Scott L. Harris + 92i° y
Superintendent, Town of Southold
SUPEsVI'OkS
Main Road TOiNN OF SOS OFFICF
Southold, New York 11971 SOLD
Dear Mr. Harris:
As you know, our office, in conjunction with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters in Washington,
DC, has made an effort to issue for your airport a Tentative
Allocation early in the year, so that you would have
sufficient time to prepare project application(s) and submit
them to us.
As of now, we have not receive any application, although we
notified you about your Tentative Allocation. We would
appreciate that you expedite the application(s) to us, so
that we can accelerate the grant process.
It is understood that we will not issue a grant offer until
we receive the final engineering costs and bid data from
you.
Sincerely,
F
Philip Brito
Manager
New York Airports District Office
tzce�sioR�
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGH
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788
JAMES A. KLIZLOSKI
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
March 20, 1992
Honorable Scott L. Harris
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Harris:
SCOTT L. HARRIS
H� $� SUPERVISOR
TO:
a / �
"FOR YOUR INFORMATION"
FRANKLIN E. WHITE
COMMISSIONER
�u 0
C? i
` 4 f�
Aviation State Grant Funding policy for
FFY-92 Program
This is to advise all potential grantees of the revised State funding policy
for the FFY-1992 Aviation Program.
The majority of the FFY-92 program will be funded from a new appropriation in
the Governor's proposed budget at 50% of the non-federal share as opposed to
the traditional 75%. However, some funding from prior years' budgets remain
which can be applied at 75% of the non-federal share. These premium funds will
be allocated on a first come first serve basis to those airport sponsors that
receive and accept their federal grants the earliest. The above funding plan,
which is predicated on limited funds, would fully cover a normal year's demand
based on past year's records. If FFY-92 becomes on extraordinary year and a
state funding shortfall ensues, some further adjustments may become necessary.
If there are any questions regarding this policy revision, please contact
Robert Michaud of the Albany Aviation Division at 518-457-2821.
Very truly yours,_
C�
JOHN A. FALOTICO
Planning & Program Management
Director
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
e
SCOTT L. HARRIS
SUPERVISOR
FAX (516) 765 - 1823
TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mr. Robert Michaud
Director, Aviation Development
Aviation Division
New York State Department
of Transportation
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12232
Dear Mr. Michaud:
February 4, 1992
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
1992 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
Enclosed for your review and consideration is our current Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
for Elizabeth Field Airport -Fishers Island. The Program identifies projects necessary for continued
development of our airport and provides a brief description, cost estimate and justification of each.
Please be assured that the Town of Southold is committed to maintaining and improving the
facilities of the Elizabeth Field Airport and respectfully requests your assistance in this effort.
If you have any questions regarding our program, or if more detailed information is necessary,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mr. Scott L. Harris
Town Supervisor
SLH:kal
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Philip Brito (w/enol.)
Mr. James Kuzloski (w/encl.)
Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C.
5 — YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Elizabeth Field Airport Airport Category:
Town of Southold Associated City :
General Aviation
Fishers Island
I i
I I
PROJECTI
FUNDING / SHARE
I
I
1 FY I PROJECT TITLE
I DESCRIPTION I
COST I
FAA
STATE
SPONSOR I
JUSTIFICATION
I
1-1
I 1
I I
($1000)1
I
(E1000) 1
I
($1000) 1
I
($1000)1
I
1
I I
119921 RUNWAY 12-30 REHABILITATION
I I
I Design of a bituminous overlay of Runway 12- 1
I
70 1
I
63.001
I
5.251
I
1.751
I
Runway 12-30 is the primary runway at 1
1 1 (DESIGN)
130 (23281x1001) including all related surface I
I
90.0X1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
Elizabeth Field. The pavement is cracked I
1 1
1 preparation, grading, marking and surface I
I
I
I
1
and worn and in need of rehabilitation to I
I I
1 restoration. I
1
1
I
1
preserve the structural integrity of the I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pavement. I
I
745.201
20.701
119931 RUNWAY 12-30 REHABILITATION
Runway 12-30 is the primary runway at 1
I Construction of a bituminous overlay of 1
828 1
62.101
1 i (CONSTRUCTION)
1 Runway 12-30 (2328'x100') including all 1
1
90.0%1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
Elizabeth Field. The pavement is cracked 1
1 1
1 related surface preparation, grading, marking 1
1
i
1
1
and worn and in need of rehabilitation to I
1 1
I and surface restoration work. 1
1
I
1
1
preserve the structural integrity of the I
I I
i t
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pavement. I
I
I—I
119931 RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION
I I
I
55 1
I
I
4.131
I
1.381
I
I Design of a 19401x75' bituminous overlay of I
The runway pavement is cracked and worn but I
49.501
1 1 (DESIGN)
1 Runway 7-25 including all related surface 1
1
90.0X1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
in good condition. A maintenance overlay is I
1 1
1 preparation, grading, marking and restoration.)
I
I
I
1
required in order to provide a smoother I
1 1
1 1
(
1
1
1
riding surface and to prevent further I
1 1
I I
1 I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
deterioration of the pavement. 1
I—i
119941 RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION
I I
I
607 I
I
I
45.531
I
The runway pavement is cracked and worn but I
1 Construction of a 19401x75' bituminous 1
546.301
15.181
1 1 (CONSTRUCTION)
1 overlay of Runway 7-25 including all related 1
1
90.0X1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
in good condition. A maintenance overlay is I
1
1 surface preparation, grading, marking and 1
i
1
1
1
required in order to provide a smoother I
1 1
I restoration. 1
1
1
1
1
riding surface and to prevent further 1
1 1
I I
1 1
I I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
deterioration of the pavement. 1
I
27 -Jan -92 * - Represents projects where accurate cost estimates are not available.
Page 1
ft —1W 5 - YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Elizabeth Field Airport Airport Category: General Aviation
Town of Southold Associated City : Fishers Island
27 -Jan -92 * - Represents projects where accurate cost estimates are not available.
Page 2
PROJECT
FUNDING / SHARE
FY PROJECT TITLE
DESCRIPTION I
COST I
FAA
STATE
SPONSOR I
JUSTIFICATION
1-1
(S1000)l
($1000) 1
($1000) 1
(51000)1
119941 APRON & ACCESS TAXIWAY
Design of a 9,000 square yard parking apron 1
51 1
45.901
3.831
1.281
increased aircraft parking area is required
(DESIGN)
and a connecting taxiway. Project includes
1
90.0%1
7.5% 1
2.5%1
to satisfy existing aircraft operational
all drainage, pavement, grading, lighting and
(
demands. The taxiway will provide access to
marking design.
(
Runway 7-25 from the parking area.
119951 APRON & ACCESS TAXIWAY
Construction of a 9,000 square yard parking 1
516 1
464.401
38.701
12.901
Increased aircraft parking area is required
(CONSTRUCTION)
apron and a connecting taxiway including all
1
90.0%1
7.5% 1
2.5%1
to satisfy existing aircraft operational
related drainage, pavement, grading, lighting
demands. The taxiway will provide access to
and marking work.
Runway 7-25 from the parking area.
119951 PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO RUNWAY
Project includes design of a 35 foot wide 1
40 1
36.001
3.001
1.001
Presently, aircraft must taxi on active
7-25 (DESIGN)
full parallel taxiway to serve Runway 7-25 1
1
90.0%1
7.5% 1
2.5%1
runway surfaces to gain access to the runway
including pavement, drainage, grading,
ends. This significantly reduces runway
marking, and lighting design.
capacity and is considered a safety hazard.
119961 PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO RUNWAY
Project includes construction of a 35 foot 1
394 1
354.601
29.551
9.851
Presently, aircraft must taxi on active
7-25 (CONSTRUCTION)
wide full parallel taxiway to serve Runway 7- 1
1
90.0%1
7.5% 1
2.5%1
runway surfaces to gain access to the runway
25 including all related pavement, drainage,
ends. This significantly reduces runway
grading, marking, and lighting work.
capacity and is considered a safety hazard.
27 -Jan -92 * - Represents projects where accurate cost estimates are not available.
Page 2
- 5 - YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Elizabeth Field Airport Airport Category: General Aviation
Town of Southold Associated City : Fishers Island
I I I
FY I PROJECT TITLE 1
I I I
I -I i
I I I
119961 PARTIAL PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO I
I I RUNWAY 12 (DESIGN) 1
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I i
119971 PARTIAL PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO 1
1 RUNWAY 12 (CONSTRUCTION) 1
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I -I I
27 -Jan -92 * - Represents projects where accurate cost estimates are not available.
Page 3
I PROJECTI
FUNDING / SNARE
I
I
DESCRIPTION
I COST I
FAA
STATE
SPONSOR I
JUSTIFICATION I
1 ($1000)1
I I
($1000) 1
I
($1000) 1
I
(S1000)1
I
I
Project includes the design a 35 foot wide
I I
1 40 1
I
36.001
I
3.001
I
1.001
I
Currently, aircraft must taxi on active I
partial parallel taxiway to Runway 12
1 1
90.0X1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
runway surfaces to obtain access to runway 1
including pavement, grading, drainage,
I I
I
I
I
ends. This significantly reduces runway 1
marking and lighting design.
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
capacity and is considered a safety hazard. 1
I
I
I I
1 420 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.501
I
I
Currently, aircraft must taxi on active I
Project includes the construction of a 35
378.001
31.501
foot wide partial parallel taxiway to Runway
I 1
90.0X1
7.5% 1
2.5X1
runway surfaces to obtain access to runway I
12 including all related pavement, grading,
I I
I
I
I
ends. This significantly reduces runway I
drainage, marking and lighting work.
I 1
I I
I I
I I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
capacity and is considered a safety hazard. 1
I
I
I
27 -Jan -92 * - Represents projects where accurate cost estimates are not available.
Page 3
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1992:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes
and directs Supervisor Scott L. Harris to transmit to the New York State
Department of Transportation the Draft Five -Year Capital Improvement
Program for Elizabeth Field Airport, Fishers Island, which Program
identifies projects necessary for continued development of the airport and
provides a brief description, cost estimate and justification for each; all in
accordance with the recommendation of Calocerinos & Spina Engineers,
P.C., the Town's engineers for the Program.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
February 5, 1992
`c s
January 29, 1992
Mr. Scott L. Harris
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RECEIVED
1= � B 3 1992
Southall T,,...., (104
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
1992 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
File: 211.
Dear Mr. Harris:
Enclosed is a draft Five -Year Capital Improvement Program which was prepared based upon your
previous program and Airport Layout Plan Update (1988).
Please review the Program and advise us of any required revisions. If the Program is acceptable,
please retype the enclosed sample letter on Town of Southold letterhead and forward the plan to Robert
Michaud with copies to James Kuzloski, Philip Brito, and Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C.(address
listing attached).
If you have any questions or if additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
CALOCERINOS
;James, . Lea
ineer
JWL:kal
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Philip Knauff
ENGINEERS, P.C.
C' -.C6""
,4.
February 4, 1992
Mr. Robert Michaud
Director, Aviation Development
Aviation Division
New York State Department
of Transportation
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12232
Re: Elizabeth Field Airport
1992 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
Dear Mr. Michaud:
Enclosed for your review and consideration is our current Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
for Elizabeth Field Airport -Fishers Island. The Program identifies projects necessary for continued
development of our airport and provides a brief description, cost estimate and justification of each.
Please be assured that the Town of Southold is committed to maintaining and improving the
facilities of the Elizabeth Field Airport and respectfully requests your assistance in this effort.
If you have any questions regarding our program, or if more detailed information is necessary,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mr. Scott L. Harris
Town Supervisor
SLH:kal
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Philip Brito (w/enol.)
Mr. James Carrigan (w/encl.)
Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C.
ADDRESS LISTING
Mr. Philip Brito, Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
New York Airports District Office
181 South Franklin Avenue
Room 305
Valley Stream, New York 11581
Mr. James Kuzloski
New York State Department
of Transportation, Region 10
NYS Office Building
Veterans Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
Calocerinos & Spina Engineers, P.C.
1020 Seventh North Street
Liverpool, New York 13088
I
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
:GGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
OFFICE OF ' HE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 2, 1991
Philip Brito, Manager
New York Airports District Office
USDOT-Federal Aviation Administration
101 South Franklin Avenue - Room 305
Valley Stream, New York 11581
Dear Mr. Brito:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1801
Returned herewith are the required number of executed Amendment
No. 1 to the Grant Agreement for Project No. 3-36-0029-01-85 at Elizabeth
Field Airport, Fishers Island, New York, as well as the required number
of executed copies of the revised final payment application.
Very truly yours,
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Accounting 8 Finance
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
�oc�vFFOIKtZ,?y
o
� Z
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 30, 1991:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes
and directs Supervisor Scott L. Harris to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
Grant Agreement between the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Town of Southold, for a $2,662.12 increase
from $134,244.00 to $136,906.12 under the 1985-86 grant to seal and repair
the runways at Elizabeth Field Airport, Fishers Island.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
August 1, 1991
USDeparfineft
of lar15pWallon
AM r allon 'JUL i l 191
Mr. Scott L. Harris
Q
Supervisor, Town of Southo 7s6,-Q1VA( Town Hall
53095 Main RoadSouthold New York 12953 S�",
Dear Mr. Harris:
New %,U Airp)lts b;s:rat ()NIMH,
Flom 3ro ,
101 89"N Frm*No Ave.
%ftyvtram My,, "at
We enclose original and four (4) copies of Amendment No. 1 to the
Grant Agreement for Project No. 3-36-0029-01-85 at Elizabeth
Field Airport, Fishers Island, NY.
This Amendment increases the Grant obligation from $1.34,244 to
$136,906.12.
If this Amendment is acceptable, you should execute it pursuant
to the -governing laws of your agency. The certification by your
attorney that the acceptance of this Amendment complies with
applicable law and constitutes a legal and binding obligation is
part of this execution. When the executed Amendment has been
determined to be legally sufficient, you will be notified
accordingly.
After such execution, please return to this office the original
and '-three (3 ) copies of the Amendment executed as duplicate
originals (that is, with original signatures thereon).
The obligations assumed under this Amendment to the Grant
Agreement shall not be changed or modified except with the
written consent of this office.
In order to expedite the payment of $2,662.12 we are enclosing a
copy of a revised final payment application which you have to
submit in triplicate (with original signatures thereon.
Please be advised that this Amendment must be executed by
September 30, 1991 to avoid the pullback of the available
funding.
Sincerely,
w
Philip Br
Manager
Enclosure
US.AepaMrent
of W nsponation
Federd Avleatlon
Adm(nistration
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Contract No. FA -EA 2663
Elizabeth Field Amort
Fishers island, New York
(L.ocation)
AMENDMFNTNO. 1. TO GRANT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. _3-36-0029-01-85
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (herein after referred to as the "FAA') has
determined it to be in the interest of the United States that the Grant Agreement between the FAA,
acting for and on behalf of the United States, and the Town of Southold,
New York
(hereinafter. referred to as the "Sponsor'), accepted by said Sponsor on the 16
day of Aug ,19 9 51 . to be amended as hereinafter provided
NOW 'THEREFORE, WPINESSETM
That in consideration of the benefits to accrue to the parties hereto, the FAA on behalf of the United
States. on one part, and the Sponsor, on the other part, do hereby mutually agree as follows:
To increase Grant Obligation from $134,244 to $136,906.12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theparties hereto havecaused this Amendment to said Grant Agreement
to be duly executed as of the 30th day of j u i X .19
Pill I
419
� ` M • u.� r
PhiljlV—
er,
•
Title Man
FAA Form 5100-38 (10-89) 1
Supersedes FAA Form 5100-38 pages 1 and 2
_..................................................�,...,..... ,.,...,..,., ,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,.,...........,.....,..f77
Page 2 of.2_. Pages
Project No. 1-36-00.9-01—s5
Elizabeth Field Airport
Southold. New York
(Location)
Town -o€ Southold
- °(Name of S )
_... .
B
catt- L644t Harris'
(sEAL)Title Supervisor.
Attest:
-judim t..I erryy .
Southold., T..ovun CCerk
Title: •-
CER A F S NSO 'S ATTORNEY
I,acting as Attorney for Town of Southold
4 'Won
(&r4fnafterieferred to as "Sponsor") do hereby certify:
Matthew G. Kiernan
That I have examined the foregoing Amendment to Grant Agreement and the proceedings taken by
said Sponsor relaiing' thereto, and -find that the execution thereof by said Sponsor has been duly
New yj54zed and is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws of the State of
and further that, in my opinion, said Amendment to Grant Agreement constitutes a legal
and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance with the terms thereof.
Dated at Southold, NY this 30th dayof JuIY .19-2-1
r
11. STATUS OF FUNDS
Approved by Office of Management and
PAGE OF
OUTLAY REPORT AND REQUEST FOR REIMBURSE-
Budget, No. 80-RO181
PAGES
MENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
1. TYPE OF REQUEST
2r BAPS OF REQUEST
(See instructions on back)
X FINAL ❑ PARTIAL
LJ CASH ❑ ACCRUAL
3. FEDERAL SPONSORING AGENCY AND ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENT TO
4. FEDERAL GRANT OR OTHER S. PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST NO.
WHICH THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED
IDENTIFYING NUMBER ASSIGNED
BY F DERAL AGENCY
i
.3 3 - 00 -off-yr .i
6. R IDENTIFICATION 7. RECIPII NT ACCOUNER R OTHER
PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT
NUMBER DE
FROM (Month, day, year)
/�— %7'e1rr
TO (Mow.th. day, gear)
G dd
/io 0/ 3
9. RECIPIENT OR ANI TION
10. PAYEE ( Where check should be sent if different than item y)
Name ttiN d /' �� ��
Name
No. and �� v 9 ��/ j� /i"�
No. and
Street
Street
City,A/
State and �v DLT /
A
J 7I I
City,
Street and
ZIP Code:
ZIP Code :
11. STATUS OF FUNDS
zia—auz STANDARD FORM 271 (7-76)
Prescribed by Office of Management and Budget
Mr. No. A-110
_1
7
L
PROGRAMS—FUNCTIONS—ACTIVITIES
CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
(a)
(b)
W
a. Administrative expense
$
$
I
$
b. Preliminary expense
i
c. Land, structures, right-of-way
d. Architectural engineering basic fees
ES
O D O 31
e. Other architectural engineering fees
Cd/ / T" i_
l r✓i f (t✓�fi%
f. Project inspection fees
g. Land development
i
h. Relocation expense
L,/,p
% 10cvN e -I
14
L Relocation payments to individuals and
businesses
j. Demolition and removal
k. Construction and project improvement
Cost
I. Equipment
m. Miscellaneous cost
n. Total cumulative to date (sum of lines
a thru m)
o. Deductions for program income
p. Net cumulative to date (Line n minus
I S"a 117, 9 l
line o)
q. Federal share to date
/ �.� 0 6 • /
r. Rehabilitation grants (100% reim-
bursement)
s Total Federal share (sum of lines q
and
t. Federal payments previously re-
/ 3 o
quested
u. Amount requested for reimbursement
$
$
$
$ 6 • /
v. Percentage of physical completion of
%
%
t
project
%
12. CERTIFICATION
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING
OFF IAL
DATE REPORT
SUBMITTED
I certify that to the best of my knowledge
7:D A�4
July 30, 1991
and belief the billed COStS or disburse
a. RECIPIENT
PED OR PRIN D NAME AND TITLE
TELEPHONE (Area code.
ments are in accordance with the terms
Scott Louis Harris
number and extension)
of the project and that the reimbursement
Supervisor, Town of Southold
(516) 765-1801
represents the Federal share due which
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING
DATE SIGNED
has not been previously requested and
OFFICIAL
that an inspection has been performed
b. Representative
and all work is in accordance with the
certifying to line
11v.
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
TELEPHONE (Area code
terms of the award.
number and extension)
zia—auz STANDARD FORM 271 (7-76)
Prescribed by Office of Management and Budget
Mr. No. A-110
_1
7
L
INSTRUCTIONS
Please type or print legibly. Items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 1Is, and I 1 are self-explanatory; specific instructions
for other items are as follows:
Item Ent n/
1 Mark the appropriate box. If the request is final, the
amounts billed should represent the final cost of the
project.
2 Show whether amounts are computed on an accrued
expenditure or cash disbursement basis.
6 Enter the employer identification number assigned by
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service [or FICE (institution)
code if requested by the Federal agency].
7 This space is reserved for an account number or other
identifying number that may be assigned by the
recipient.
11 The purpose of vertical columns (a) through (c) is to
provide space for separate cost breakdowns when a
large project has been planned and budgeted by pro-
gram, function or activity. If additional columns are
needed, use as many additional forms as needed and
indicate page number in space provided in upper right;
however, the summary totals of all programs, func-
tions, or activities should be shown in the "total"
column on the first page. All amounts are reported on
a cumulative basis.
l la Enter amounts expended for such items as travel, legal
fees, rental, of vehicles and any other administrative
expenses. Include the amount of interest expense
when authorized by program legislation. Also show
the amount of interest expense on a separate sheet.
llb Enter amounts pertaining to the work of locating and
designing, making surveys and maps, sinking test
holes, and all other work required prior to actual
construction.
llc Enter all amounts directly associated with the acquisi-
tion of land, existing structures and related right-of-
way.
lld Ener basic fees for services of architectural engineers.
l le Enter other architectural engineering services. Do not
include any amounts shown on line d.
Item
F,ntnj
llj Enter gross salaries and wages of employees of the
recipient and payments to third party contractors di-
rectly engaged in performing demolition or removal of
structures from developed land. All proceeds from the
sale of salvage or the removal of structures should be
credited to this account; thereby reflecting net
amounts if required by the Federal agency.
llk Enter those amounts associated with the actual con-
struction of, addition to, or restoration of a facility.
Also, include in this category, the amounts for project
improvements such as sewers, streets, landscaping,
and lighting.
111 Enter amounts for all equipment, both fixed and mov-
able, exclusive of equipment used for construction. For
example, permanently attached laboratory tables, built-
in audio visual systems, movable desks, chairs, and
laboratory equipment.
llm Enter the amounts for all items not specifically men-
tioned above.
lln Enter the total cumulative amount to date which
should be the sum of lines a through m.
llo Enter the total amount of program income applied to
the grant or contract agreement except income in-
cluded on line j. Identify on a separate sheet of paper
the sources and types of the income.
llp Enter the net cumulative amount to date which should
be the amount shown on line n minus the amount
on line o.
l lq Enter the Federal share of the amount shown on line p.
llr Enter the amount of rehabilitation grant payments
made to individuals when program legislation provides
100 percent payment by the Federal agency.
l if Enter inspection and audit fees of construction and l It Enter the total amount of Federal payments previously
related programs. requested, if this form is used for requesting reim-
bursement.
llg Enter all amounts associated with the development of
land where the primary purpose of the grant is land
improvement. The amount pertaining to land develop- llu Enter the amount now being requested tor reimburse-
ment normally associated with major construction_ ment. This amount should be the difference between
should be excluded from this category and entered on the amounts shown on lines s and t. If different, ex -
line k. plain on a separate sheet.
llh Enter the dollar amounts used to provide relocation 12a To be completed by the recipient official who is re -
advisory assistance and net costs of replacement hous- sponsible for the operation of the program. The date
ing (last resort). Do not include amounts needed for should be the actual date the form is submitted to the
relocation administrative expenses; these amounts Federal agency.
should be included in amounts shown on line a.
Ili Enter the amount of relocation payments made by the 12b To be completed by the official representative who
recipient to displaced persons, farms, business con- is certifying to the percent of project completion as
cerns, and nonprofit organizations. provided for in the terms of the grant or agreement.
STANDARD FORM 271 (7-76)
.U.S. COVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1981 0 - 361-526 (7158)
Fishers Island Ferry District
Dutrict Canted By Special Aa of The N. Y. State LesUlatwre (lawn of N. Y., 1947, Chapta 6o0)
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK 06390
ROBERT P. KNAUFF
Manager • Secretary
TELEPHONE 788.7463
Area Code 516
New York State Department of Transportation
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Attn: John A. Falotico
Gentlemen:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REYNOLDS duPONT, JR., Chairman
RAYMOND F. DOYEN
RICHARD S. BAKER
JOHN C. EVANS
THOMAS F. DOHERTY, JR.
April 14, 1990
Re: Elizabeth Airport
In response to your letter of March 20, 1990, below is
listed the update for the Elizabeth Airport capital and
planning needs.
FY 90
Obstruction lighting and removal. Evaluate the treatment of
the extended runway safety area for runways 12-30 and 7-25.
Existing runways are extremely short and approaches for
three are over water. Aircraft are exposed to shifts in
wind speed and direction that require the safety areas to be
free of obstructions and graded properly. Estimated cost
$150,000.00.
FY 91
Rehabilitation of runway 12-30 (100' X 2600') by reconstruc-
tion or overlay. Pavement surface is in poor condition.
Numerous cracks as well as settled areas exist. Estimated
cost $1,300,000.00.
FY 92
Runway 12-30 edge lighting, wind cone and beacon. Installa-
tion of medium intensity runway edge lighting systems on
runway 12-30. Also included is the installation of a
rotating beacon, illuminated wind cone. airfield lighting
pilot control system and electrical vault. This will better
define the pavement edges to allow safe and efficient
operations during night and periods of low visibility. The
existing system is in poor condition and is unreliable.
Estimated cost $400,000.00
F. I. FERRY DISTRICT ltr dtd 4/14/90
page 2
Runway 12-30 visual landing aids. Installation of precision
approach path indicator (PAPI) and runway end identifier
light (REIL) systems on runway 12-30. This will provide
visual descent guidance and improved runway identification
for pilots during aircraft landing operations. Estimated
cost $200,000.00.
FY 93
Perimeter fencing. Installation of chain link fencing along
selected boundary locations to prevent unauthorized access
to airside facilities.
Apron expansion. Construct approximately 7500 square yards
of aircraft parking apron including all related site
preparation, paving, drainage, lighting and marking
improvements. Provide increased aircraft parking area to
satisfy future anticipated aircraft operational demands.
Estimated cost $500,000.00
FY 94
Rehabilitation of runway 7-25
reconstruction and/or overlay.
condition with numerous cracks
Estimated cost $800,000.00
(2100' x 75') pavement by
Pavement surface is in poor
as well as settled areas.
Installation of medium intensity runway edge lighting system
on runway 7-25. Define pavement edge to allow safe and
efficient operations during night and periods of low
visibility. Existing lighting system is in poor condition
and is unreliable. Estimated cost $200,000.00
Installation of precision approach path indicator (PAPI) and
runway end identifier ;light (REIL) systems on runway 7-25
to provide visual descent guidance and improved runway end
identification for pilots during aircraft landing
operations. Estimated cost $200,000.00.
F. I. FERRY DISTRICT ltr dtd 4/14/90 page 3
Install approximately 1,400 linear feet of water line to
runway intersection and install fire hydrant to provide
additional fire protection on the airfield. Estimate cost
$100,000.00.
Very truly yours,
Robert P. Knauff
Copy to: NY Airports District Office
FAA Eastern Region
supervisor, Town of Southold