[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12529]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 24, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 121
Extension of Compliance Date for Installation of Digital Flight Data
Recorders on Stage 2 Airplanes; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. 27532; Amendment No. 121-238]
RIN 2120-AF34
Extension of Compliance Date for Installation of Digital Flight
Data Recorders on Stage 2 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule changes the final compliance date for
installing improved (11-parameter digital) flight data recorders from
May 26, 1994, to the next heavy maintenance check, but no later than
May 26, 1995, in Stage 2 airplanes subject to the rules requiring a
transition to an all Stage 3 fleet. This change allows carriers more
time to take actions necessary to retrofit Stage 2 airplanes and makes
the flight data recorder replacement rule more compatible with the
noise transition requirements without having a significant impact on
safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary E. Davis, Project Development Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
8096.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On March 25, 1987, the FAA promulgated a final rule that requires
operators, by May 26, 1994, to install improved (11-parameter digital)
flight data recorders on all airplanes type certificated on or before
September 30, 1969, and operated under part 121 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (52 FR 9622). The final rule, Sec. 121.343(c), was issued
in response to a recommendation from the National Transportation Safety
Board that was based on accident/incident files for January 1983 to
February 1986 that revealed a high failure rate for metal foil flight
recorders. The data revealed that 37 recorders (48 percent) had one or
more malfunctioning parameters preceding the accident or incident,
preventing the recording or readout of pertinent data.
Air Transport Association's Petition for Exemption
In August 1991, the Air Transport Association (ATA) petitioned the
FAA for an exemption from Sec. 121.343(c). The ATA stated that the
compliance date for the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) retrofit
was inappropriate when considering the schedule for either retrofitting
airplanes with noise abatement equipment or retiring airplanes in order
to comply with the Stage 3 transition mandated in September 1991 (56 FR
48628, September 25, 1991). The FAA denied the ATA exemption request,
stating that the Stage 3 transition rule did not mandate the retirement
of any Stage 2 airplanes. The FAA pointed out that noise abatement
equipment was expected to be available for virtually the entire active
fleet.
In June 1992, the ATA again requested that the FAA extend the May
26, 1994, DFDR compliance date for its members and similarly situated
operators. In the alternative, the ATA requested that the FAA establish
a delayed DFDR retrofit schedule that coincided with the Stage 3
transition interim compliance dates to avoid having to install new
DFDR's on airplanes that were scheduled to be retired. The ATA asserted
that the compliance deadline would require its members to install
DFDR's on Stage 2 airplanes that would be retired within 5\1/2\ years
of the May 1994 compliance date to remain in compliance with the part
91 noise operating rule. The ATA also asserted that this DFDR retrofit
requirement for Stage 2 airplanes would impose substantial costs on
them with little perceived benefit.
On January 29, 1993, after considering all the data presented by
the ATA and the commenters, the FAA determined that a grant of
exemption was justified and in the public interest. Exemption No. 5593
permits ATA members to operate certain Stage 2 airplanes equipped with
DFDR's that have 6 rather than 11 operational parameters. Operation is
allowed subject to certain conditions and limitations, including the
requirement that air carriers submit a list of their Stage 2 aircraft
that will be retired by December 31, 1998. On June 30, 1993, the FAA
amended Exemption No. 5593 to clarify certain conditions that were
being misinterpreted.
Air Transport Association's Petition for Rulemaking
On November 17, 1993, the ATA submitted a petition for rulemaking
to amend Sec. 121.343, requesting that the regulation be amended to
require DFDR installation only on airplanes that will remain in the
fleet beyond December 31, 1999, with installation on those aircraft
accomplished in phases.
As justification for this proposed change, the ATA stated that, if
10 of its operators were to comply with the retrofit requirements of
Sec. 121.343(c) by May 26, 1994, the cost would exceed $29 million. No
details were given on how these costs were estimated.
On February 23, 1994, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (Notice No. 94-4, 59 FR 8570) that detailed the ATA's
request but proposed an amendment to Sec. 121.343 that would extend for
1 year the compliance time for DFDR installation on Stage 2 airplanes
that are subject to the Stage 3 transition requirements of part 91.
Discussion of Comments
Four comments, including one from the ATA, were received in
response to the NPRM. One comment was submitted in response to the
publication of the ATA petition, before the proposed rule was
published. That comment supported the ATA request, but did not address
the rule change that was proposed. Only one operator affected by the
rule submitted comments on the petition or the proposed amendment.
Comment: The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) states that the FAA
should not grant the ATA's request to adopt a phased DFDR compliance
schedule. The ALPA disagrees with the FAA's finding that the chance of
an accident happening on one of the Stage 2 airplanes covered by the
rule change is remote.
Response: The FAA did not propose to adopt the ATA's requested
phased compliance schedule for DFDR installation; the FAA proposed only
to allow a 1-year extension for certain airplanes in the fleet. ALPA
did not submit any information to refute the FAA finding that the
chance of an accident occurring on a subject airplane during the 1-year
extension is remote.
Comment: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) believes
that 7 years is sufficient time for the operators to have complied with
the DFDR retrofit requirements and is disappointed that the May 26,
1994, compliance date is being delayed. ``However, because it would be
impossible for the industry to complete the retrofit requirements by
May 26, 1994, the NTSB agrees that a maximum 1-year extension for Stage
2 aircraft is the only recourse available to the FAA without requiring
large-scale grounding of transport category airplanes.'' The NTSB also
states that operators should be required to submit a list of airplanes
affected by this rule change to FAA headquarters, noting that the
``industry has failed to comply with a previous FAA requirement for
operators to provide an Aircraft Retirement Schedule'' as mandated in
the ATA exemption discussed previously.
Response: The FAA appreciates the NTSB's acknowledgement of the
ramifications of enforcing the May 26, 1994, compliance date and
stresses that the minimum feasible extension was sought. The proposed
rule already requires the submission of a list of aircraft covered by
this extension. In accordance with the NTSB request, the lists will be
submitted to the Flight Standards Service at FAA Headquarters (AFS-
200).
With regard to the operator's compliance with the ATA exemption,
the FAA notes that not all covered operators have chosen to take
advantage of the exemption; operators that do not choose to use the
exemption are not required to submit retirement schedules. Further,
there was some confusion on the part of some operators as to which
airplanes were allowed to appear on an ARS; that confusion has been
eliminated after much discussion between the affected operators and the
FAA, and the subsequent issuance of an amended exemption. The FAA is
not aware of any operators that have chosen to use the exemption and
failed to submit the required retirement schedule.
Comment: The ATA states that, as proposed, the amendment ``may help
some U.S. operators,'' but suggests several modifications to the
proposed rule.
Expand the applicability of the extension to include
certain Stage 3 airplanes for which there currently is no
supplemental type certificate or DFDR kit approve for installation.
The ATA states that there will be significant service impacts on the
affected operators, and suggests that the operators of these
airplanes be required to submit documentation as to the anticipated
STC approval or retrofit kit delivery dates.
The FAA disagrees. The proposed extension was intended to make
the DFDR rule more compatible with the Stage 3 transition rule of
part 91 and its first compliance date of December 31, 1994. No Stage
3 airplanes are affected by the transition rule. Operators have had
7 years' notice in which to plan for DFDR retrofit of Stage 3
airplanes, a fact not changed by adoption of the Stage 3 transition
rules in 1991. Operators that have failed to use the 7 years to plan
for Stage 3 DFDR retrofits cannot now claim a hardship brought on by
their own inaction.
The FAA stated to the NPRM that it recognized the economic
impact of the effects of the DFDR and Stage 3 transition rules
combined. There is no similar argument to be made for airplanes
unaffected by the Stage 3 transition rules, and to date the FAA has
not made any DFDR retrofit exceptions for Stage 3 airplanes.
The ATA does not justify why these operators that failed to act
in a timely fashion after adequate notice should be allowed an
extension of the compliance date. Further, the ATA comment does not
take into account the safety benefit of DFDR retrofitted airplanes,
or state any public interest in extending the amendment to these
operators. Further, the ATA suggestion includes a requirement for
those operators to show only when they anticipate STC or kit
approval and does not mention an installation date.
Finally, the FAA has no reason to expect that the same
nonapproved equipment argument could not be made at the time of the
1995 compliance date as well. Accordingly, no change will be made in
the final rule to expand the applicability of the extension.
The ATA states that any Aircraft Retirement Schedule
(ARS) approved under its exemption should remain valid. The ATA is
concerned about a statement in the NPRM about the FAA's proposed
reexamination of the exemption terms.
The FAA has no plans to withdraw the approval of any ARS already
submitted and approved. In fact, the FAA is considering whether the
closing date for the submission of an ARS should be extended to
allow for reevaluation of fleet plans based on this amendment.
However, the FAA must retain the ability to ensure that the rule and
the exemption are not inconsistent or that their combined or
separate effects do not unfairly harm or benefit individual
operators subject to them. While the FAA currently is not aware of
any such circumstances, the agency recognizes its continuing
obligation to ensure that such inequities do not exist. No change to
the final rule was suggested by this comment.
The ATA disagrees with the definition of ``heavy
maintenance check'' as being any time the aircraft is taken out of
service for 4 or more days. The FAA notes that a normal service
check of 1 to 2 days can be extended to 4 days because discrepancies
that are found during the scheduled check require additional time to
rectify. It argues that an operator cannot always foresee the need
for such unscheduled maintenance and have the parts or personnel
immediately available to accomplish the DFDR retrofit when such
circumstances arise. The ATA proposed that the definition be revised
to ``any occasion which an airplane is taken out of service for a
planned heavy maintenance check that is 4 days or longer in
duration.''
The FAA agrees that the service requirements of an individual
airplane do not always conform to the time initially allotted for
maintenance, and that the definition needs clarification. However,
the FAA disagrees with the ATA's proposed wording since it includes
the words ``heavy maintenance check'' within the definition, and, as
noted in the NPRM, that term has no regulatory meaning and is
subject to broad interpretation among operators. The concept the FAA
is attempting to convey is one in which the airplane is scheduled to
be out of service for 4 or more days, not an unplanned 4-day period.
This provision highlights the FAA's expectation that the retrofit be
completed as soon as possible, and not deferred until some time near
the extended compliance date. The term ``heavy maintenance check''
as used in the rule should be thus interpreted.
The ATA states that operators should not be required to
submit evidence that they have ordered sufficient flight data
recorder equipment to meet the May 26, 1995, compliance date. The
ATA does not see the connection between submitting proof of orders
and the FAA's admonition to operators to the take full advantage of
the additional compliance time. In addition, the ATA considers such
documentation to be confidential, and suggests that the FAA use
``standard surveillance practices to ensure a carrier's intent to
comply with the rule.''
The FAA disagrees. The inclusion of the requirement to submit
evidence of equipment ordered is based on FAA experience with
similar requirements and the tendency for covered operators to delay
compliance as long as possible. This very tendency is what leads to
routine requests for such extensions. Submission of equipment orders
shows good faith on the part of the operator to comply and avoids
later delays based on equipment unavailability. Conversely, FAA
surveillance cannot determine the intent of an operator to comply,
much less ensure an operator's intent, as the ATA states. Likewise,
a Flight Standards Information Bulletin telling FAA inspectors to
``survey the operators on the status of their DFDR installation
plans'' would be equally ineffective. It is unrealistic to expect
that a survey question from an FAA inspector to a part 121 operator
would ensure that DFDR installation becomes a priority. Submission
of the equipment orders keeps attention focused on compliance and
provides proof of plans to comply that is unavailable by any other
means. Accordingly, that provision will remain in the final rule.
Finally, the FAA will treat all such information submitted as
proprietary, as it does the planning information submitted under the
Stage 3 transition rule.
The ATA also responded to the request for specific cost information
in the NPRM. The ATA states that it ``did not receive any specific cost
data outlining the cost savings/benefits of the proposed rule'' from
its members. It estimates, however, that 25 percent of the noncomplying
fleet will not have to be specially scheduled if the proposed 1-year
extension is made final, and that this estimate represents a savings of
$9.8 million to its members. The ATA does not provide any information
on how it arrived at this estimate.
The Amendment
The FAA extends the compliance date in Sec. 121.343(c) for all
Stage 2 airplanes subject to the Stage 3 transition rule
(Sec. 91.801(c)). The amendment requires that the DFDR installation be
accomplished at the next heavy maintenance check, but in no case later
than May 26, 1995. A heavy maintenance check is considered any time an
airplane is scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days. The
extension will allow more flexibility in retrofit planning for those
operators that have experienced difficulty in obtaining engineering
approval for DFDR retrofit designs, or an inability to obtain parts and
installation services before the May 26, 1994, compliance date. This
change may also function to bring operators past the first interim
compliance date of the Stage 3 transition rule, possibly eliminating
the necessity for any airplanes to be DFDR retrofitted before being
removed from the fleet for noise compliance purposes, depending on the
individual circumstances of the operator. By its connection to the
Stage 3 transition rule, this amendment does not extend the compliance
date for Stage 2 airplanes under 75,000 pounds, since they are not
covered by the transition rule.
This amendment also requires that by June 23, 1994, each operator
submit to the FAA (AFS-200) a list of its Stage 2 airplanes that will
be covered by this rule change, and evidence (i.e., a binding contract)
that the operator has ordered sufficient flight data recorder equipment
to meet the May 26, 1995, DFDR compliance date, either by aircraft
retirement or planned retrofit. As detailed in the disposition of
comments section above, this provision is designed to ensure that
operators take full advantage of the time provided by the extension.
This amendment is considered as providing significant economic
relief to the industry and is consistent with recent recommendations
from the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline
Industry (Commission), a Presidential task force formed in April 1993
to make policy recommendations about the financial health and future
competitiveness of the U.S. airline and aerospace industries.
In light of the Commission's recommendations and the information
submitted, the FAA has determined that a persuasive case has been made
concerning the changing conditions and difficulties that operators have
encountered in attempting to meet the May 26, 1994, DFDR compliance
date for Stage 2 airplanes subject to the noise transition rule. The
FAA does not anticipate any significant impact on safety from the
adoption of this amendment. As detailed in the NPRM, flight data
recorders, regardless of the number of operational parameters they
record, have no direct effect on the safe operation of an airplane. The
importance of flight data recorders lies in their ability to reveal the
status and operational parameters of an airplane after it is involved
in an accident or other incident. Depending on what is revealed, such
data can be used as the basis for altering the operation of physical
characteristics of similar airplanes. Thus, for the amendment to have a
negative impact, one of the airplanes covered by it would have to be
involved in an accident in the additional 1 year, and information
essential to the determination of cause must be a part of one of the
five additional parameters recorded on the upgraded DFDR but not on the
currently required six-parameter flight data recorders.
The FAA has concluded that the chance of these particular
circumstances occurring is remote. Further, the FAA has sought to limit
this possibility by extending the compliance date only for Stage 2
airplanes, some of which are expected to leave the fleet by December
31, 1994, under the noise transition regulations. By requiring all
other airplanes to comply with the DFDR rule as promulgated in 1987,
the FAA seeks to maximize the benefit of DFDR installation.
The FAA stresses that all airplanes covered under the extension
must still be equipped with one or more approved flight data recorders
that record those parameters specified in part 121. It is only the
upgrade to 11-parameter DFDR's that is extended for a limited number of
airplanes. The FAA also stresses that the relief will have no effect on
compliance with the Stage 3 transition. The extension is not available
for Stage 2 airplanes not subject to the Stage 3 transition rule, i.e.,
Stage 2 airplanes that weigh less than 75,000 pounds.
The FAA stresses that carriers should not consider the extension as
a period of deferred retrofit action. The FAA does not anticipate
granting any further relief from the DFDR requirements for any
airplanes beyond that given here. The DFDR rule was promulgated in 1987
and should have been incorporated into fleet planning by part 121
operators. The FAA acknowledges that circumstances such as the Stage 3
transition rules require some reconsideration of rule impacts, and in
light of the reported difficulties in obtaining the necessary equipment
and support to comply with the DFDR rule, this extension is an example
of the kind of relief that the FAA considers to be justified. To date,
no other substantial, quantifiable data has been presented to support
further delay in compliance with the DFDR regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements in the amendment to
Sec. 121.343 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control No. 2120-0581.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures,
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this
rulemaking action. The FAA has determined that this rule change is not
a ``significant rulemaking action,'' as defined by Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The results are stated in this
section.
The final rule, by extending the compliance date by up to 1 year,
would allow for the installation of DFDR's to coincide with the
installation of noise abatement equipment on, or the retirement of
aircraft that are affected by the December 31, 1994, noise compliance
date. The current exemption limits the relief from the current deadline
for installing DFDR to Stage 2 airplanes that will be retired by the
end of the decade, leaving aircraft intended for retrofitting with
noise abatement equipment subject to the current deadline of May 1994.
Any aircraft that are scheduled for retirement by the end of the decade
for which an exemption has not been obtained will also be subject to
this deadline.
The potential benefits of this rule change will be the cost savings
realized by the operators of Stage 2 aircraft in part 121 service that
plan to retrofit these aircraft with noise abatement equipment or have
not received an exemption for those Stage 2 aircraft they plan to
retire by the end of the decade. The rule change will afford these
operators up to an additional year in which to install the required
DFDR equipment. Operators that plan to retrofit their aircraft with
noise abatement equipment before May 1995 would derive the greatest
cost savings because DFDR retrofit could be accomplished at the same
time that the aircraft was being retrofitted with noise abatement
equipment. Therefore, no additional nonroutine downtime will be
required for the upgraded DFDR retrofit.
The amount of the potential cost savings accruing to operators
planning to retrofit their aircraft prior to the May 1995 deadline was
estimated using industry data. Information provided to the FAA by ATA
members indicates that the installation of upgraded DFDR's could
require from 2 to 5 days of downtime per airplane, depending on the
type of equipment. The major carriers responding to the ATA survey
estimated the costs of this downtime from $14,000 to $26,000 per day
per airplane. The FAA forecasts that about 250 Stage 2 aircraft will be
retrofitted with noise abatement equipment over the next year.
Operators of these aircraft can therefore expect cost savings between
$10 million (based on 2 days of downtime per aircraft and an average
cost of $20,000 per day) and $25 million (based on 5 days of downtime
per aircraft and a cost of $20,000 per day) from this rule change.
In its comment, the ATA estimated that 25 percent of the existing
noncomplying Stage 2 fleet would not have to be specially scheduled to
meet the May 26, 1995, compliance date. The FAA used a slightly higher
estimate of the proportion of the fleet that could avoid nonroutine
downtime. However, the ATA estimate of the potential cost savings of
$9.8 million was near the low end of the FAA's estimated range ($10
million).
Operators planning to retrofit their Stage 2 airplanes with noise
suppression equipment after May 1995 will not receive as great a
benefit in terms of reduced downtime, however, because the additional 1
year afforded by this rule change may not be sufficient for them to
avoid any nonroutine downtime. Nevertheless, these operators will be
able to benefit from the opportunity to delay incurring installation
costs for the upgraded DFDR equipment by up to 1 year, the value of
which is calculated in the following paragraph. Available FAA data
indicates that about 490 Stage 2 aircraft will fall in this category.
The FAA was able to estimate the opportunity cost of capital
savings that operators could expect from being able to delay incurring
the expense of installing upgraded DFDR equipment up to 1 year.
Responses from a survey of its members conducted by the ATA indicated
that the installed cost of the equipment would range from $20,000 to
$40,000. Given the expected rate of return on capital of 7 percent that
is mandated by the OMB, the FAA estimates that the opportunity cost
savings expected to result from the rule change would amount to about
$1.03 million, using the midpoint of the expected range of equipment
installation costs (.07 x $30,000 x 490 aircraft).
A number of operators that plan to retire their Stage 2 aircraft
over the next 5 years have not taken advantage of the previously
granted exemption from the upgraded DFDR requirement. Those operators
of aircraft that plan to remove from service some airplanes by the
December 31, 1994, noise transition compliance deadline and that are
not using the exemption could also benefit from this rule change.
Extension of the DFDR deadline will allow operators to forego
installing upgraded DFDR equipment on some aircraft that would
otherwise be retired within 7 months of the installation.
The rule change will impose only minimal costs on society in the
form of a reduction in safety because of the extremely low probability
that one of the 740 airplanes potentially affected by this rule will
have an accident during the additional 1 year. Moreover, if there were
an accident involving one of these Stage 2 airplanes, the causes of
such an accident would have to be determinable only with the additional
data provided by an upgraded DFDR. For a safety benefit to be realized,
this information would have to be used in rulemaking or some other
agency action that would prevent a second future accident with a chain
of causation closely resembling that of the first accident. The
resulting probability of these two hypothetical accidents actually
occurring once the rule change goes into effect is considerably less
than the already remote possibility that one of the 740 affected
aircraft would have a serious accident over this time period.
The rule change will also require that each air carrier submit to
the FAA documentation listing those Stage 2 aircraft scheduled for DFDR
retrofit as well as evidence that it has ordered a sufficient number of
flight data recorders to meet the May 26, 1995, compliance date for all
aircraft on the list. The FAA has estimated that this paperwork
information requirement will cost each affected air carrier about $25.
The total cost of this provision will therefore not appreciably alter
the overall balance between the costs and benefits of the rule change.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily burdened
by government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules
that may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' The rule change is of a cost relieving nature and
will therefore afford cost savings to individual part 121 operators.
Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the criterion for a ``substantial
impact'' is a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than one
third of the small entities subject to the rule. For operators of
aircraft for hire, a small operator is one that owns, but not
necessarily operates, nine or fewer aircraft. This rule change will
mainly affect part 121 scheduled operators, although some unscheduled
operators could be affected as well. The FAA's criterion for a
``significant impact'' is $116,300 or more per year for a scheduled
operator whose entire fleet has a seating capacity of 60 seats or more,
$65,000 for a scheduled operator with a fleet including smaller
aircraft, and $4,600 or more for an unscheduled operator.
The extent of the annualized cost savings per aircraft resulting
from the opportunity cost of capital that would be saved (i.e., what
could be earned on alternative investments) would be $2,100 per
aircraft, based on the assumptions used in calculating the potential
total cost-savings resulting from this factor in the previous section
(.07 x $30,000). A scheduled carrier with a fleet of smaller aircraft
would therefore need to convert more than nine aircraft to exceed its
threshold value of $65,000, in which case it would not be regarded as a
small entity. A scheduled carrier with a fleet of larger aircraft would
have to convert even more aircraft to exceed its threshold of $116,300.
The threshold value for an unscheduled operator is only $4,600,
however, as noted above. A carrier would therefore only have to convert
three airplanes to exceed this threshold, using the estimate of cost
savings derived above. No unscheduled operators responded to the
request in the NPRM for information pertaining to the number of Stage 2
aircraft that they are planning to retrofit with noise abatement
equipment. The FAA therefore concludes that a determination of no
``significant economic impact'' is warranted in the absence of contrary
information.
International Trade Impact Statement
OMB directs agencies to assess the effects of regulatory changes on
international trade. The rule change will affect only U.S. air carriers
because foreign carriers are not subject to part 121. The economic
analysis of the final rule mandating that aircraft receiving an
original type certificate before September 30, 1969, install DFDR's
capable of recording the required number of parameters by May 1994
concluded that there would not be any trade impact. Therefore, the
provision of relief from the original rule in the form of a deadline
extension is not expected to have any impact on international trade.
Federalism Implications
The amendment would not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, it is determined that this amendment will not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federal Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with the
Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation
Organization to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA is not aware of
any differences that this amendment will present.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
amendment is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this amendment, if adopted,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This amendment is considered not
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aviation safety, Transportation.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration to amend part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 121) as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-
1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
2. Section 121.343 is amended by revising the first sentence of the
introductory text of paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 121.343 Flight recorders.
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this section, no person
may operate an airplane specified in paragraph (b) of this section
unless it is equipped, before May 26, 1994, with one or more approved
flight recorders that utilize a digital method of recording and storing
data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage
medium. * * *
* * * * *
(l) No person may operate an airplane specified in paragraph (b) of
this section that meets the Stage 2 noise levels of part 36 of this
chapter and is subject to Sec. 91.801(c) of this chapter unless it is
equipped with one or more approved flight data recorders that utilize a
digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily
retrieving that data from the storage medium. The information specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this section must be able to be
determined within the ranges, accuracies and recording intervals
specified in appendix B of this part. In addition--
(1) This flight data recorder must be installed at the next heavy
maintenance check after May 26, 1994, but no later than May 26, 1995. A
heavy maintenance check is considered to be any time an aircraft is
scheduled to be out of service for 4 or more days.
(2) By June 23, 1994, each carrier must submit to the FAA Flight
Standards Service, Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), documentation
listing those airplanes covered under this paragraph and evidence that
it has ordered a sufficient number of flight data recorders to meet the
May 26, 1995, compliance date for all aircraft on that list.
(3) After May 26, 1994, any aircraft that is modified to meet Stage
3 noise levels must have the flight data recorder described in
paragraph (c) of this section installed before operating under this
part.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-12529 Filed 5-19-94; 10:01 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M