[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4014]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
