Extension of Compliance Date for Installation of Digital Flight Data Recorders on Stage 2 Airplanes; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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