Extension of Compliance Date for Installation of Digital Flight Data Recorders on Stage 2 Airplanes

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 27532; Notice No. 94-4]

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

summary: This notice proposes to change 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 would allow carriers

more time to take actions necessary to retrofit Stage 2 airplanes, and

would make the flight data recorder replacement rule more compatible

with the noise transition requirements without having a significant

impact on safety.

dates: Comments must be received by March 25, 1994.

addresses: Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 27532, 800 Independence Avenue,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must be marked Docket No.

27532. Comments may be examined in room 915G weekdays, except on

Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

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:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,

federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the

proposal in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should

be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the

regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in

triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments

received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be

considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in

light of comments received. All comments received will be available,

both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules

Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments

to Docket No. 27532.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to

the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,

Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must

identify the notice number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which

describes the application procedure.

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 State 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 asserted that this DFDR retrofit

requirement for Stage 2 airplanes would impose substantial costs on

them with little perceived benefit.

The ATA cited several factors in support of its petition, including

the estimated cost of DFDR retrofit, the cost and lead time in

accomplishing the engineering work to support the retrofit, the impact

of retiring Stage 2 airplanes that were DFDR retrofitted, the required

review of agency rules to insure that benefits are maximized, and the

argument that flight data recorders do not enhance aircraft safety. The

ATA concluded that the DFDR retrofit would no longer be viewed as cost

beneficial because of the noted events and circumstances that have

occurred since the rule was promulgated in 1987.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on

August 12, 1992. Two comments were received, both of which opposed the

petitioner's request.

A DFDR manufacturer opposed the exemption, citing the number of

unsolved accidents, the extended life of commercial airplanes, and the

possibility of further expenses associated with a delay in compliance

with Sec. 121.343(c) as its reasons for opposing the exemption.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) opposed the

exemption because (1) it would delay the safety benefits to be gained

by the DFDR retrofit; (2) the need for and safety benefits of having

11-parameter recorders were well established; and (3) linking the DFDR

requirement to the operating noise rules of part 91 could result in

non-complying aircraft being flown beyond the year 2000.

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. The terms of the exemption

allow non-ATA air carriers to apply for coverage under the exemption if

they are similarly situated.

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. The ATA states that the previously granted

exemption does not provide the scope of relief necessary for its

members and similarly situated air carriers, and that a change to the

rule is necessary.

The ATA requests that Sec. 121.343(c) be amended to reflect the

following:

1. Installation of 11-parameter DFDR's be required only for those

airplanes that will be in the fleet beyond December 31, 1999.

2. Installation of 11-parameter DFDR's in those airplanes (those

that will remain in the fleet beyond December 31, 1999, including Stage

3 airplanes) would be accomplished on a phased compliance schedule with

the option of retiring or retrofitting a percentage of the operator's

fleet as follows:

After December 31, 1994, at least 25 percent of the Operator's

fleet on U.S. operations specifications that do not have the 11-

parameter DFDR installed must be retired or have the 11-parameter DFDR

installed;

After December 31, 1996, at least 50 percent must be retired or

have the 11-parameter DFDR installed;

After December 31, 1998, at least 75 percent must be retired or

have the 11-parameter DFDR installed;

After December 31, 1999, 100 percent must be retired or have the

11-parameter DFDR installed.

As justification for this proposed change, the ATA states in its

petition that, if 10 of its operators were to comply with the retrofit

requirements of Sec. 121.343(c) by May 28, 1994, the cost would exceed

$29 million. The ATA petition does not specify how these costs were

computed, or what portion applies to aircraft that would be retired.

The ATA does state that if non-ATA-member carriers were considered, the

cost estimate would be at least double.

The ATA also states that the change is justified by problems with

the technical requirements of DFDR installation. The ATA notes that

retrofit instructions and parts do not yet exist for all aircraft

currently in the fleet. These engineering specifications and retrofit

kits can cost up to $250,000 per aircraft type to develop, require a

40-week lead time, and must undergo FAA approval. The petition does not

give any detail as to the number or type of airplanes affected by these

circumstances.

The ATA also restated the justifications presented in its original

petition for exemption, including the variable fleet plans of carriers

and the fact that the presence of an 11-parameter DFDR on an airplane

does not make the operation of that airplane any safer.

In January 1994, to further support its petition, the ATA presented

updated information indicating that conditions in the industry have

changed further, and that meeting the May 26, 1994, compliance date

would be impossible for a significant number of Stage 2 airplanes

because of changes in fleet plans, and equipment availability and

certification difficulties. A copy of the updated data presented by the

ATA has been placed in the docket.

The FAA has reviewed the ATA proposal in detail and is unable to

support it for several reasons.

The FAA acknowledges that an economic burden results from the

inconsistent timing of the Stage 3 transition rule and DFDR rule

requirements, that thee burdens affect part 121 operators to varying

extent, and that relief is needed that is beyond the scope of the

current exemption. However, the ATA petition seeks to include all

aircraft currently in the fleet, whether Stage 2 or Stage 3. The noise

transition rule does not affect Stage 3 airplanes currently in the

fleet; their status has not changed since the time the DFDR rule was

adopted in 1988, and the ATA has presented no justification why these

aircraft should be included in any relief.

Further, the ATA has repeatedly argued that its member carriers

revise their fleet plans on a weekly basis. However, in its petition,

the ATA proposes that aircraft that would leave an operator's fleet by

December 31, 1999, would not have to be DFDR retrofitted, and that

those that will remain will be phased into DFDR compliance.

The FAA finds it difficult to reconcile these two positions. The

ATA proposal would require every affected operator to engage in

considerable fleet planning if it is to know in advance which aircraft

need not be retrofitted because they will not be in the operator's

fleet after 1999. The same would be true of any attempt to retrofit any

percentage of a fleet by specific dates. Given the admitted constant

shifts in fleet plans, the FAA has determined that to make full use of

a rule such as that proposed by the ATA would require complete

flexibility for the operator and thus would make compliance almost

impossible to monitor or establish at any given time.

Further, the ATA petition is unclear in its starting point for

individual operator's fleets. Given the changing fleet plans of

operators, the FAA was unable to determine when there would be a

``count'' of airplanes from which to measure percentage compliance, or

how that percentage would be affected by aircraft movements in and out

of an individual fleet.

However, as stated previously, the FAA acknowledges that some

relief is needed from the combined impact of the Stage 3 transition and

DFDR retrofit rules and the current equipment availability problems, at

least as far as Stage 2 airplanes are concerned. Accordingly, the FAA

is proposing to amend Sec. 121.343(c) to provide some relief to part

121 operators. This proposal seeks to limit the financial burden for

DFDR installation while recognizing that there is a safety benefit from

the installation of 11-parameter DFDR's. The substance of the exemption

granted to the ATA and other petitioning part 121 carriers would not be

affected by this proposed extension of the compliance date; a carrier

may choose to maintain exemption coverage for that portion of its Stage

2 fleet listed on the Aircraft Retirement Schedule required by the

exemption. Based on the outcome of this rulemaking action, however, the

FAA will reexamine the exemption to ensure its continued legal

applicability and compatibility with any changes made to Sec. 121.343

and determine whether the date for submission on an Aircraft Retirement

Schedule should be amended.

The Proposed Rule

The FAA proposes to extend 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 proposed rule would require that the DFDR

installation be accomplished at the next heavy maintenance check, but

in no case later than May 26, 1995. The proposed extension would allow

more flexibility in retrofit planning for those carriers 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 carriers past the first interim compliance date of

the Stage 3 transition rule, possibly eliminating the necessity for any

airplanes to be DFDR retrofitted before they are removed from the fleet

for noise compliance purposes, depending on the individual

circumstances of the carrier.

The proposed rule would also require that by May 26, 1994, each

carrier submit to the FAA a list of its Stage 2 airplanes that will be

covered under by this proposed rule change, and evidence (i.e., a

binding contract) that the carrier has ordered sufficient flight data

recorder equipment to meet the May 26, 1995 compliance date, either by

aircraft retirement or planned retrofit. This provision is designed to

ensure that carriers take full advantage of the time provided by the

proposal extension.

The proposed relief would be of economic significance 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 recommendations and the information

submitted, the FAA has determined that the ATA has presented a

persuasive case concerning the changing conditions and difficulties

that carriers have encountered in attempting to meet the May 26, 1994,

DFDR compliance date. The FAA does not anticipate any significant

impact on safety if this proposal is adopted. 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 or physical

characteristics of similar airplanes. Thus, for the proposed rule 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 are promulgated in 1987,

the FAA seeks to maximize the benefit of DFDR installation.

The FAA stresses that all airplanes covered under the proposed

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 would be extended for a

limited number of airplanes. The FAA also stresses that the proposed

relief would have no effect on compliance with the Stage 3 transition.

The proposed relief would not be 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 proposed rule provision that requires DFDR installation at the

time of the next heavy maintenance check after May 26, 1994, is the

FAA's admonition to carriers that the agency expects DFDR installation

to be accomplished at the earliest feasible time. A ``heavy maintenance

check'' is considered to be any occasion on which the airplane is taken

out of service for 4 or more days for maintenance; the FAA recognizes

that carriers may have different terminology to describe this concept,

and the term ``heavy maintenance check'' as used in this proposal is

not meant to describe a specific recognized circumstance or event.

In petitioning for an exemption from Sec. 121.343(c), the ATA based

its argument of cost without benefit on the regulations requiring the

transition to an all Stage 3 fleet. In granting the requested

exemption, the FAA emphasized that the Stage 3 transition rule does not

require the retirement of any Stage 2 airplanes. The exemption was thus

limited to those aircraft that operators actually planned to retire

rather than retrofit to meet Stage 3 noise levels. However, the

operators indicated that the equipment usage and retirement plans

mandated by the granted exemption were incompatible with both fleet

planning capabilities and the less restrictive compliance requirements

of the Stage 3 transition rule.

The FAA acknowledges that the relief proposed here is not as broad

as that described in the ATA petition. The FAA seeks comment from

affected operators on the extent to which this proposed extension will

relieve recent problems experienced in DFDR retrofits of Stage 2

airplanes. The FAA specifically requests economic data that details the

costs of compliance with the current May 1994 compliance date and any

costs savings anticipated from the extension proposed here. Comments

that contain information concerning any quantifiable impact on safety

in delaying compliance are also requested.

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 proposed 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

The information collection requirements associated with this rule

are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval

in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under

OMB No.: New.

Title: Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and

Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft.

Proposed Use of Information: Compliance enforcement.

Frequency: One time per carrier.

Burden estimate: $25 per air carrier.

Respondents: Approximately 50 part 121 air carriers with Stage 2

aircraft.

Form(s): Not applicable.

Average Burden hours per respondent: \1/2\ hours.

For further information, contact: The Information Management

Division, M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4735. Comments on the

proposed information collection requirements should be submitted to:

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal

Aviation Administration. It is requested that comments sent to OMB also

be sent to the FAA rulemaking docket for this proposed action.

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 proposed rule is

not a ``significant rulemaking action,'' as defined by Executive Order

12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The results are summarized in

this section.

The proposed rule, by extending the compliance date by up to 1

year, would allow for the installation of DFDR to coincide with the

installation of noise suppression kits for those 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 on Stage 2 airplanes that will be retired by the end of the

decade, leaving aircraft intended for retrofitting with noise

suppression 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 would also be subject to this

deadline.

The potential benefits of this rule change would be the cost

savings realized by the operators of Stage 2 aircraft in part 121

service that plan to retrofit these aircraft with noise suppression

equipment or have not received an exemption for those Stage 2 aircraft

they plan to retire by the end of the decade. The proposal would afford

these operators up to an additional year in which to install the

required DFDR equipment. Operators that were planning to retrofit their

aircraft with noise suppression 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

suppression equipment. Therefore, no additional non-routine downtime

would 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 proposed 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 passenger 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 suppression equipment over the next 1\1/

2\ years. Operators of these aircraft could therefore expect cost

savings of 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 unit) from

this proposal. The FAA solicits comments from the industry regarding

the cost savings expected from the avoidance of additional downtime

solely for the purpose of retrofitting aircraft with upgraded DFDR's.

Operators planning to retrofit their Stage 2 airplanes with noise

suppression equipment after May 1995 would not receive as great a

benefit in terms of reduced downtime, however, because the additional 1

year afforded by this proposal may not be enough for them to avoid any

non-routine downtime. Nevertheless, these operators would be able to

benefit from the opportunity to delay incurring installation costs for

the upgraded DFDR equipment by up to one year, the value of which is

calculated in the following paragraph. Available FAA data indicates

that about 490 Stage 2 aircraft would fall in this category. The FAA

solicits data from the industry regarding the amount of non-routine

downtime that could be avoided if the operators of these aircraft were

afforded the proposed additional year to comply with the upgraded DFDR

requirements.

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 by 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the FAA

estimates that the opportunity cost savings expected to result from the

proposal 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). The FAA solicits comments from part 121 air carriers

regarding the expected impact of the proposed regulatory relief on

their costs of compliance, including the number of airplanes to which

this relief would apply. Information pertaining to the scheduling of

these retrofits would also be useful in calculating the cost savings.

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 proposal. Extension of

the DFDR deadline would allow them to forego installing upgraded DFDR

equipment on some aircraft that would otherwise be retired within 7

months of the installation.

The proposed rule change would impose only a minimal cost 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 (which would not be prevented by the

new 11-parameter DFDR) during the additional 1 year. Moreover, if there

were an accident involving 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,

assuming the proposal 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 frame. The FAA calls for

comments on the extent of the potential reduction in safety that could

result from this proposal.

The proposal would also require that each air carrier submit to the

FAA documentation listing those Stage 2 aircraft scheduled for 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 would cost each affected air carrier about $25.

The total cost of this provision would therefore not appreciably alter

the overall balance between the costs and benefits of the proposed

rule.

Initial 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 proposed rule is of a cost relieving nature

and would 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 does

necessarily operate, nine or fewer aircraft. This proposal would 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 well over 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. To make a determination of a ``significant

economic impact,'' the FAA needs information pertaining to the number

of Stage 2 aircraft that small unscheduled operators are planning to

retrofit with noise suppression equipment. The FAA therefore requests

that affected part 121 operators provide information pertaining to the

number of aircraft involved and the potential reduction in compliance

costs per aircraft.

International Trade Impact Assessment

OMB directs agencies to assess the effects of regulatory changes on

international trade. The proposed rule 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 proposed rule 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 proposal would not have

sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism 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 proposal would present if adopted. Any

differences that may be presented in comments to this proposal,

however, will be taken into consideration.

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

proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this

proposal, 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 proposal 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 Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 121 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations 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

paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:

Sec. 121.343 Flight recorders.

* * * * *

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (l) 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.

(2) By May 26, 1994, each carrier must submit to the FAA

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 data 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 February 17, 1994.

William J. White,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 94-4014 Filed 2-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M