AFS - 14 - 074 - E Exemption No. 10969 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591 In the matter of the petition of OPER ATORS OF CERTAIN Regulatory Docket No. FAA - 2013 - 1048 BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE DHC - 8 - 400 SERIES AIRPLANES for an exemption from § 121.346(d)(3)(i) and 121.346(d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions

GRANT OF EXEMPTION By letter dated December 5, 2013, James Boothe, Director of Quality Assurance, Republic Airlines, 8909 Purdue Road, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268 (Republic), p et itioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for exemption from §§ 121.346(d)(3)(i) and 1 21 . 346 (d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Th e proposed exemption, if granted, would allow the operator to continue operation of its 34 Bo mbardier Aerospace DHC - 8 - 400 airplanes after April 21, 2014, without complying with the prohibition on the filtering of f

l ight recorder data of § 121.346. On December 10, 2014 [sic], Carl Allen, Horizon Air, 8070 N.E. Airtrans Way, Portland, OR, 97218 (Ho rizon), petitioned for exemption from the same regulations for Horizon’s 51 Bombardier Aerospace DHC - 8 - 400 airplanes. The petitioner s request relief from the following regulations : Section 121.346(d)(3)(i) requires in pertinent part that airplanes foun d to be filtering any parameter listed in para graph (c) of that section must remove the f iltering no later than April 21, 2014.2

Section 121.346(d)(4) requires in pertinent part that after April 21, 2014, no aircraft flight data recording system may filte r any parameter listed in paragraph (c) of that section that does not meet the requirements of Appendix B or M of part 121, unless the certificate holder possesses test and analysis procedures and the test results that have been approved by the FAA, and th at the correlation documents are maintained as required by part 121. The petitioner s support their request s with the following information: Both petitioners submitted identical letters from the aircraft manufacturer, Bombardier Aerospace, supporting the operators’ requests for a three - month exemption from the filtering prohibition in part 121. The letter explains the configuration of the DHC - 8 - 400 flight data recorder system, and notes that “to accommodate additional parameters required by the FAA in 14 CFR Part 121 in 2010, a Flight Data Recorder Signal Conditioning Unit (FSCU p/n 1152862 - X) was designed and manufactured by Honeywell [International, Inc. (Honeywell)] to install on the DHC - 8 Series 400 aircraft.” The letter then describes the changes to the regulations made by the FAA in 2010 to restrict data filtering, including the addition of Section 121.346. Bombardier and Honeywell did an analysis of the flight recorder parameters affected by the rule and determined that the DHC - 8 Series 400 aircra ft were not in compliance. Bombardier informed the affected U.S. operators of its aircraft of the situation in September 2011. Between January and July 2012, “several significant technical and business issues” became apparent, including whether the filt ering could be removed without additional hardware modification, the fact that other regulatory changes had consumed much of the processing time for the manufacturers, and whether removal of the filtering software might introduce an unacceptable level of s ensor noise to be recorded, requiring additional software logic. The letter goes on to detail Bombardier and Honeywell’s efforts to resolve the issues throughout 2012 and 2013. The letter concludes that the updated FSCU would not be available for instal lation on in - service airplanes until February 17, 2014. The replacement and return to service is expected to take 6 hours per airplane, with an intent to perform one upgrade per night at each of the petitioner’s f acilities. Bombardier also warned that old er units may require additional upgrades and require rework at Honeywell, delaying the planned upgrade schedule. Bombardier ask ed that the two affected operators be granted a three month extension from the April 21, 2014, compliance date. Petitioner Repu blic Airlines noted that without an exemption, it would have to ground its aircraft with serious disruption to its business and customers. It also notes that the regulatory changes regarding filtering are meant to improve accident investigation, but do no t have a direct impact on the safety of a given flight.3

Petitioner Horizon Air included with its petition a memo from Honeywell detailing the same issues as described in the Bombardier letter to its customers, and which reflects a proposed installation completion date of July 2014. Horizon indicated that it too would be forced to remove aircraft from service if the exemption is not granted, causing a cancellation of flights and delays of passengers. For these reasons, Horizon states that an exemption w ould be in the public interest. Similar to Republic, Horizon states that the flight recorder is an accident investigation tool that does not directly impact the safety of flight. A summary of the petition of Horizon Air, Docket No. FAA - 2013 - 1048 , was p ublished in the Federal Register on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3454) . Comments on the petition were due February 10 , 2014. No comments were received. The FAA's analysis is as follows: The FAA amended the regulations prohibiting flight data recording filte ring in 2010, with four years for compliance. Materials submit ted by the petitioners indicate that the manufacturer of their airplanes did the required analysis in 2011 and found that the DHC - 8 - 400 series was filtering some flight data and began a program with the avionics equipment producer to upgrade the equipment to be compliant with part 121. While each operator remains responsible for the operation of its airplanes and the equipment installed on it, the FAA understands that these two operators have b een significantly impacted by the delays of the two manufacturers in designing and certifying compliant equipment that are beyond the operators’ control. The FAA finds that good cause exists to allow additional time to retrofit the subject aircraft with c ompliant equipment. The FAA reminds operators that flight recorder systems are considered safety equipment simply even if they do not affect the operation of a given flight. The petitioners note that flight recorders are investigational tools. Flight r ecorder data are often the only evidence of airplane problems available to investigators following aircraft accidents and incidents, and filtered data were shown to have significantly inhibited the investigation of the cause of a well - known aircraft accide nt, possibly delaying the corrective action that was necessitated. However, because the subject airplanes will still be recording flight data and the limitations of its systems are known, the FAA agrees that a limited time to complete the upgrades is appr opriate and that the public interest will be served by allowing continued operation of the operator’s affected airplanes. This grant of exemption includes a list of the identified airplanes that may take advantage of this exemption relief. Relief is lim ited to those airplanes identified in the list. Operators of other airplanes of the models noted may petition the FAA to be included in the relief, but must have written FAA approval before such relief may be exercised. All of the airplanes included on t his list are subject to all of the conditions and limitations included in this petition even if they differ from a petitioner’s initial request. Operators that fail to comply with all of the listed conditions and limitations are prohibited from continued use of their airplanes after April 21, 2014, until the aircr aft are fully compliant with the requirements of part 121.4

Sinc e there are only two operators of the affected aircraft, both must be aware that exchanges of or loan of affected airplanes does n ot cause the exemption to transfer. Such operations are restricted to the procedure listed in item 5. of the conditions and limitations contained herein. All modifications to airplanes necessary to comply with the flight recorder filtering regulations o f 14 CFR Part 135 must be completed as soon as possible, and no later than October 21, 2014 . Once modifications are completed on an airplane, the relief provided by this exemption terminates. No extensions of this exemption will be considered. The FAA ’s Decision In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701 , delega ted to me by the Administrator, the petition for an e xemption from 14 CFR §§ 121 . 346(d)(3)(i) and 121.346(d)(4) is granted to the extent necessary to allow the operators of the Bombardier DHC - 8 Series 400 airplanes described in item 9 below to temporarily operate these airplanes subject to the conditions and limitations listed herein. Conditions and Limitations 1. This exemption applies only to the airplanes listed in the table included in item 9 below. 2. In order to continue the operation of any airplane identified in this exemption, each operator of an affected airplane must, within 10 days of the issuance of this exemption but not later than April 18 th , 2014, submit a letter to its principal inspector requ esting to use this exemption including : a. A list of the airplanes that the operator has determined are subject of this exemption, identified by model, serial and current registration numbers; and b. Acknowledgement of the conditions and limitations listed in this exemption as the basis for continued operation of the airplane until it is modified. 3. Th e letter required in item 2 must also be filed concurrently in Regulatory Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 1048 by the operator requesting the relief. 4. This exemption allows for the continued operation of affected aircraft with a DFDR that records filtered flight data for parameters 12, 13, 14 and 88 as described in 14 CFR § 121.344(a), as applicable. No other relief from any other parameter or other flight recorder provision of Part 121 is granted by this exemption.5

5. Use of this exemption is not transferable t o a subsequent operator of an affected airplane without the prior written approval of the FAA. Use by a subsequent operator is subject to written request and FAA approval before the airplane may be operated. 6. A copy of this exemption must be retained with the operator's DFDR correlation documentati on as specified in 14 CFR § 121.346 as applicable until the airplane identified in this exemption has been modified pursuant to this exemption. 7. In the event of an accident or incident after which the DFD R data must be sent to the FAA or the National Transportation Safety Board, the operator must provide a copy of this exemption. 8. Within 10 days of submission of the letter required in Condition No. 2 above, the operator must provide to its principal a vionics inspector a schedule for the completion of the modifications required to bring each airplane into compliance with the applicable regulation. Such schedule may not extend beyond the date of termination of this exemption. Monthly updates of the modi fication schedule must be provided by each operator to its principal avionics inspector until the modifications are complete and each airplane complies with Title 14 CFR § 121.346. 9. Table of Affected Aircraft DHC - 8 - 402 4030 DHC - 8 - 402 4031 DHC - 8 - 402 4032 DHC - 8 - 402 4036 DHC - 8 - 402 4037 DHC - 8 - 402 4046 DHC - 8 - 402 4047 DHC - 8 - 402 4048 DHC - 8 - 402 4049 DHC - 8 - 402 4050 DHC - 8 - 402 4051 DHC - 8 - 402 4053 DHC - 8 - 402 4055 DHC - 8 - 402 4059 DHC - 8 - 402 4060 DHC - 8 - 402 4061 DHC - 8 - 402 4067 DHC - 8 - 402 4081 DHC - 8 - 402 4083 DHC - 8 - 402 40866

DHC - 8 - 402 4129 DHC - 8 - 402 4143 DHC - 8 - 402 4145 DHC - 8 - 402 4147 DHC - 8 - 402 4149 DHC - 8 - 402 4150 DHC - 8 - 402 4153 DHC - 8 - 402 4154 DHC - 8 - 402 4156 DHC - 8 - 402 4160 DHC - 8 - 402 4161 DHC - 8 - 402 4163 DHC - 8 - 402 4164 DHC - 8 - 402 4166 DHC - 8 - 402 4168 DHC - 8 - 402 4181 DHC - 8 - 402 4182 DHC - 8 - 402 4186 DHC - 8 - 402 4187 DHC - 8 - 402 4188 DHC - 8 - 402 4190 DHC - 8 - 402 4191 DHC - 8 - 402 4195 DHC - 8 - 402 4196 DHC - 8 - 402 4199 DHC - 8 - 402 4202 DHC - 8 - 402 4203 DHC - 8 - 402 4204 DHC - 8 - 402 4208 DHC - 8 - 402 4209 DHC - 8 - 402 4210 DHC - 8 - 402 4213 DHC - 8 - 402 4214 DHC - 8 - 402 4227 DHC - 8 - 402 4232 DHC - 8 - 402 4235 DHC - 8 - 402 4236 DHC - 8 - 402 4240 DHC - 8 - 402 4243 DHC - 8 - 402 4246 DHC - 8 - 402 43237

DHC - 8 - 402 4328 DHC - 8 - 402 4332 DHC - 8 - 402 4333 DHC - 8 - 402 4336 DHC - 8 - 402 4338 DHC - 8 - 402 4339 DHC - 8 - 402 4340 DHC - 8 - 402 4341 DHC - 8 - 402 4342 DHC - 8 - 402 4345 DHC - 8 - 402 4346 DHC - 8 - 402 4347 DHC - 8 - 402 4348 DHC - 8 - 402 4351 DHC - 8 - 402 4352 DHC - 8 - 402 4353 DHC - 8 - 402 4354 DHC - 8 - 402 4355 DHC - 8 - 402 4356 DHC - 8 - 402 4358 DHC - 8 - 402 4363 DHC - 8 - 402 4364 DHC - 8 - 402 4380 DHC - 8 - 402 4409 DHC - 8 - 402 4410 DHC - 8 - 402 4452 DHC - 8 - 402 4457 DHC - 8 - 402 4459 This exemption terminates on the sooner of the installation of the software update correcting the problem as stated above , or October 21, 2014 , unless so oner superseded or rescinded . Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2014. /s/ John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service .