[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 942-950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2005-20245; Notice No. 10-01]
RIN 2120-AJ65


Extension of the Compliance Date for Cockpit Voice Recorder and 
Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the FAA published a final rule titled 
``Revisions to Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital Flight Data Recorder 
Regulations.'' The rule required certain upgrades of digital flight 
data recorder and cockpit voice recorder equipment on certain aircraft 
beginning April 7, 2010. The FAA is proposing to change that compliance 
date for some aircraft as outlined in this notice. This action follows 
petitions from several aircraft manufacturers and

[[Page 943]]

industry organizations indicating an inability to comply with the April 
2010 requirement.

DATES: Send your comments on or before February 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2005-
20245 using any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
    <bullet> Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    <bullet> Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment 
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you 
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket, or, Docket Operations in Room 
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions contact: 
Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics Maintenance Branch, Flight Standards 
Service, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 385-4292; facsimile (202) 
385-4651; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#790d1014570a11180f1c0b391f1818571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="47332e2a69342f263122350721262669202831">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal questions contact: Karen 
L. Petronis, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; facsimile (202) 267-3073; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f79c96859299d98792838598999e84b7919696d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e8e2f1e6edadf3e6f7f1ecedeaf0c3e5e2e2ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations providing minimum 
standards for other practices, methods and procedures necessary for 
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that 
authority since flight data recorders are the only means available to 
account for aircraft movement and flight crew actions critical to 
finding the probable cause of incidents or accidents, including data 
that could prevent future incidents or accidents.

Background

A. History of the Regulatory Requirements

    In February 2005, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposing to amend the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) and cockpit 
voice recorder (CVR) regulations for much of the U.S. fleet of aircraft 
(70 FR 9752; February 28, 2005) (NPRM). The changes proposed were based 
on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB 
or Board) that were issued as a result of the Board's investigations of 
several aircraft accidents and incidents. A full discussion of the 
NTSB's recommendations and the FAA's proposed changes can be found in 
the NPRM.
    In March 2008, the FAA issued a final rule adopting many of those 
proposals (73 FR 12541; March 7, 2008). The requirements were adopted 
as aircraft certification or operating rules, some of which take effect 
on April 7, 2010, and include:
    <bullet> The recording of datalink communications (DLC), when the 
communications equipment is installed after April 7, 2010;
    <bullet> Wiring requirements related to single electrical failures 
and their effect on the DFDR and CVR systems;
    <bullet> The addition of a 10-minute independent power source for 
the CVR;
    <bullet> Requirements regarding the CVR location and housing;
    <bullet> Requirements for the duration of DFDR recording;
    <bullet> Requirements for the duration of CVR recording;
    <bullet> Increased sampling rates for certain DFDR parameters.
    A detailed discussion of the individual requirements and where they 
appear in the regulations can be found in the preamble to the 2008 
final rule, beginning at page 12556 (Section-By-Section Analysis). Some 
of the requirements are effective two years from the April 7, 2008 
effective date while others are required within four years of that 
date.
    The preamble to the 2008 final rule also contains a discussion of 
the comments received in response to the NPRM. A total of 53 commenters 
responded, but only three of them included any comment about compliance 
time. Most comments focused on technical considerations or the cost of 
compliance rather than the time proposed.
    Of the few comments regarding compliance time, one came from Airbus 
concerning the installation of the CVR independent power source for 
aircraft to be manufactured beginning in April 2010, requesting an 
increase from two to four years. We replied that Airbus was the only 
manufacturer that indicated that the proposed compliance time was a 
problem, and that Airbus did not provide us with any data to support 
its position that integration of the power source into newly 
manufactured aircraft could not be accomplished in two years. Airbus 
also commented that the proposed two-year time frame for integration of 
increased recording rates of 16 Hertz (Hz) for certain parameters was 
unrealistic. The FAA received numerous comments regarding technical 
considerations of the increased recording rates (not the compliance 
time). In the final rule, we adopted a lower (8 Hz) sampling rate in 
response to these comments. The FAA believed that incorporating the 8 
Hz rate into newly manufactured aircraft was achievable in the two-year 
compliance time.

[[Page 944]]

    With regard to DLC recording capability, the NTSB commented that 
two years was too much delay for incorporation of the recording system. 
Northwest Airlines, Inc. requested that the time for integration be two 
to four years to ensure time for approval of the message sets and 
creation of ground infrastructure. Several commenters discussed the 
compliance time as it related to technical considerations, but no 
comments regarding DLC recording equipment availability were received.

B. Recent Industry Petitions

    Beginning in May 2009, the FAA began to receive requests for relief 
from various requirements adopted in the 2008 final rule. Those 
requests are summarized below:
    1. In a letter dated May 1, 2009, Boeing petitioned the FAA on 
behalf of operators that would be taking delivery of new Boeing Model 
777 airplanes between April 7, 2010, and December 21, 2013 (docket 
number FAA-2009-0438). Boeing sought exemption relief for these 
operators from compliance with the requirements for DLC recordation and 
for increased sampling rates for certain DFDR parameters. The 
requirements would be effective on airplanes manufactured after April 
7, 2010. Its petition stated that ``[D]ue to the complexity and high 
level of integration of the underlying avionics systems, Boeing has 
determined that type certificate design changes, certification, and 
implementation in production are not feasible'' for the 777 by the date 
in the regulation. As a result, Boeing would not be able to offer the 
DLC capability it does now, and its customers would be unable to 
achieve the increased quality of controller-pilot communications that 
leads to more efficient routing, less fuel burn and reduced emissions. 
Boeing also noted that an increased time for compliance would allow 
Boeing to harmonize its offered DLC equipment packages with the 
requirements of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Boeing 
indicated that there is no negative effect on safety with a delay, 
since it would allow the current DLC equipment to be used.
    Boeing's petition also included a request for relief from the 
increased sampling rates for certain DFDR parameters. Boeing stated 
that the DLC recording and sampling upgrades both require changes to 
its large-scale integrated avionics platform, the Aircraft Information 
Management System (AIMS). Granting the exemption would allow several 
AIMS changes to be bundled into a single upgrade, reducing the economic 
and operational impact on the operators.
    2. In a letter dated May 1, 2009, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) 
petitioned the FAA to change the part 135 requirements adopted in the 
2008 final rule that require increased sampling rates for two DFDR 
parameters (docket number FAA-2009-0441). Bombardier noted that, 
although as a manufacturer it is not subject to part 135 since it is an 
operating rule, it considers itself responsible to deliver part 135 
compliant aircraft to its U.S. customers. Because the FAA does not 
grant operational relief to manufacturers, Bombardier presented its 
request as a petition for rulemaking to change the regulatory 
requirement for its aircraft. Bombardier found that the increased rates 
required by the regulation for two parameters could not be integrated 
into its BD-700 Model aircraft by the compliance date without 
significant system modifications. Bombardier requested relief for the 
BD-700 until it is able to introduce a new avionics suite that is 
scheduled for installation beginning in 2011. The relief requested is a 
footnote change to part 135 Appendix F for the BD-700. Bombardier noted 
that its current installation records at 5 Hz rather than the 8 Hz 
required after April 7, 2010, making the required modification change 
significant in cost, but not the quality of information since it will 
affect only a few aircraft before the new avionics suite is installed.
    3. By letter dated July 16, 2009, Boeing again petitioned the FAA 
for an exemption, this time on behalf of the operators of all Boeing 
airplanes (Models 737, 747, 767 and 777) manufactured between April 7, 
2010 and April 7, 2011, to operate without DLC recording capability, 
without the increased sampling rates, and without the independent power 
source for the CVR as required by the 2008 final rule (docket number 
FAA-2009-0672).
    Boeing cited essentially the same reasons as in its first petition, 
``that type certificate design changes, certification, and 
implementation in production are not feasible'' for all its models by 
the 2010 date. Boeing noted that the rule requires the development of 
new equipment or modifications to existing equipment from multiple 
suppliers, including significant lead time necessary to certify and 
implement design changes. Boeing concluded that the ``development 
schedules for the new and modified equipment either do not support the 
compliance date or have an unacceptable amount of risk.'' \1\ Boeing's 
discussion goes on to note that the interrelationship and dependence 
between various system components ``prevents compliance with the rules 
until all of the components of the system are available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the petition does not define the type of risk 
cited, whether safety or commercial or the criteria under which the 
petitioner determined it to be unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boeing stated that if relief is not granted, it will be unable to 
offer even the current level of DLC capability.
    4. By letter dated June 11, 2009, Airbus petitioned the FAA on 
behalf of the operators of 15 Airbus airplanes to be manufactured 
between April 7, 2010 and December 31, 2011, to operate without the DLC 
recording capability required by the 2008 final rule (docket number 
FAA-2009-0665). Airbus cited the same reasons for its request as appear 
in the Boeing petitions, that certification and implementation of the 
design changes necessary are not feasible by April 7, 2010. Airbus 
cited the same justifications for its position as Boeing, some in 
identical language, including the fact that the use of DLC results in 
environmentally cleaner aircraft operations. Airbus's petition does not 
include any relief from the increased data rates requested by Boeing 
and Bombardier.
    5. On September 30, 2009, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation 
(Gulfstream) petitioned the FAA on behalf of the U.S. operators of its 
GIV-X and GV-SP Model airplanes that would be manufactured between 
April 7, 2010 and April 7, 2012, including Gulfstream itself (docket 
number FAA-2009-0933). The 160 airplanes Gulfstream expects to produce 
during that period would require relief to operate without DLC 
recording capability, increased DFDR sampling rates, or the independent 
power source for the CVR required by the 2008 final rule. Gulfstream's 
petition also stated that the development and integration of the 
necessary changes ``are not feasible'' by April 7, 2010, using much of 
the same language common to the Boeing and Airbus petitions. Gulfstream 
indicated that the equipment for its PlaneView software is based on 
Honeywell architecture, and will not be available until 2011.
    6. On October 8, 2009, the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association (GAMA) petitioned the FAA to amend parts 91 and 135 to the 
extent necessary to extend the implementation date for some of the 
requirements in the 2008 final rule (docket number FAA-2009-0963). The 
GAMA stated that ``[F]or a number of reasons, a large segment of

[[Page 945]]

the general aviation business aircraft industry will not be in a 
position to comply with all aspects of the new requirements'' by April 
7, 2010. It cited equipment availability, resource constraints and 
greater technical impact than initially considered. The GAMA sought 
regulatory relief from the requirements for DLC recording and for 
increased DFDR sampling rates.
    The GAMA petition stated that ``supplier and company resources 
necessary to make these changes have been significantly diminished by 
the faltering economy,'' noting a 15 percent reduction in the general 
aviation manufacturing industry workforce. It estimated that ``the 
majority of business jet manufacturers will be in a position to deliver 
aircraft which capture the appropriate parameters at 8 Hz by April 
2012.'' The GAMA also noted that the use of DLC is so limited in 
domestic airspace that there would be no impact on safety to extend the 
recording requirement.
    7. By letter dated October 23, 2009, the Aerospace Industries 
Association (AIA) and the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) 
petitioned jointly to extend the compliance dates for several of the 
CVR and DFDR regulations adopted in 2008 (docket number FAA-2009-1017). 
The AIA and ATA sought to extend by two years the requirement for DLC 
recording, the increased rate for certain DFDR parameters, and the CVR 
independent power supply. The joint petition also requested that the 
compliance date for all of these items be extended three and one-half 
years (to 2013) for the Boeing 777 model aircraft. This relief is the 
same as that requested in the petitions already discussed. In addition, 
the AIA/ATA petition sought to extend the DLC recording requirement by 
four years for in-service airplanes that have DLC equipment installed 
on or after April 7, 2010. The AIA and ATA characterized their petition 
as ``consolidat[ing] those previous submissions in to a single proposal 
that meets the collective intent'' of the previous petitioners.
    The joint petition stated that the changes required by the 
regulation are ``not feasible'' by April 7, 2010, citing back to the 
petitions discussed above. It also said that the risk is unacceptable, 
and described it as a risk of ``certainty of meeting a compliance 
date.'' The petition noted that even more time is needed for the 
incorporation of DLC recording on in-service airplanes because the 
primary efforts by equipment and airframe manufacturers are toward 
newly manufactured airplanes. Approval of supplemental type 
certificates for in-service airplanes would not begin until after 
efforts for the newly manufactured airplanes are completed.
    The joint petition stated that failure to change the regulations 
would result in a ``one to two-year halt in the deliveries of numerous 
new aircraft due to production issues'' and a ``one- to four-year 
suspension of datalink installations on new and in-service aircraft.'' 
The joint petition also predicted that a ``break'' in the manufacturing 
and delivery cycle for new airplanes ``could result in a smaller usable 
fleet or require the use of older, stored airplanes.''
    8. By letter dated November 23, 2009, Dassault Aviation (Dassault) 
petitioned for exemption relief on behalf of its operators for all 
Falcon series airplanes (estimated at 50) produced between April 7, 
2010 and April 7, 2012 (docket number FAA-2009-1173). Dassault 
requested that these airplanes be allowed to operate without the 
increased sampling rates, the 10-minute independent power supply for 
CVRs, or the datalink communications recording requirements adopted in 
the 2008 final rule. Dassault noted that its U.S. subsidiary, Dassault 
Falcon Jet, is an operator of these airplanes in the United States as 
an ``interim step'' in its sale of airplanes in the United States.
    Dassault stated that compliance requires ``the development of new 
equipment or modifications to existing equipment from multiple 
suppliers.'' It also stated that ``significant lead time [is] necessary 
to develop design requirements and to implement and certify the design 
changes on multiple airframes. The development schedules for the new 
and modified equipment do not support the compliance date.'' Dassault 
noted the interrelationship and dependence between the various parts of 
the CVR and DFDR systems required by the 2008 final rule.
    Dassault stated that exemption would be in the public interest 
because the inability to operate newly manufactured airplanes in the 
United States ``would have a significant economic burden on both the 
owner/operators and Dassault Aviation.'' Denial of its petition would 
``relegate these business aircraft to a state of reduced capability'' 
and would force ``operators not to upgrade their avionics load'' with 
other avionics equipment that is bundled into its manufacturing 
upgrades.
    Similar to other petitioners, Dassault requests a ``time-limited 
exemption that allows aircraft to be delivered and operated'' without 
meeting the regulatory requirements. There is no indication that 
Dassault intends to upgrade these aircraft after the exemption would 
expire, leaving the FAA to presume that it is petitioning for permanent 
exemption for its airplanes, not something time-limited.
    9. By petition dated December 14, 2009, Embraer Empresa Brasileira 
de Aeronautica, S.A. (Embraer) requested an exemption that would be 
applicable to 5 EMB-145 series and 40 ERJ 170/190 series airplanes that 
would be produced between April 7, 2010 and April 6, 2011 (docket 
number FAA-2009-1204). Embraer requested exemptions for these newly 
manufactured airplanes from the increased DFDR sampling rates, the 
datalink recordation requirements, and the 10-minute independent power 
supply requirement for CVRs adopted in 2008.
    Embraer stated that neither it nor its recorder system suppliers 
will be able to complete the development, testing, and certification 
programs for new recorder systems before the April 2010 regulatory 
deadline. Embraer supports its petition by stating that the current 
DFDR and CVR systems on its airplanes provide an acceptable level of 
safety. It also said that a grant of exemption would be in the public 
interest because the interrupted delivery of airplanes would cause 
business disruptions that would outweigh ``the small benefit that would 
accrue from the increase in design and performance level of the DFDR 
and CVR systems.'' The petition did not include any information as to 
what it has accomplished toward regulatory compliance thus far. The FAA 
presumes that Embraer is asking for permanent exemption for its 
aircraft since it did not submit a schedule when the 45 affected 
airplanes would be upgraded once a one-year exemption expired, nor did 
it request a permanent change to the regulation.

C. FAA Response to Petitions

    The FAA is seriously disappointed with the manufacturers and other 
facets of the industry. The identicality and scope of the various 
petitions appears as a decision by industry not to comply with the 
April 2010 date, a decision that was made some time ago.
    Through contact with the petitioners, the FAA was made aware that 
one of the current circumstances appears to be the lack of equipment 
design and integration that begins with avionics equipment 
manufacturers. Most glaringly, in none of the petitions do the airframe 
manufacturers indicate that they had properly planned for regulatory 
compliance and are petitioning now because they are unable to obtain 
timely delivery of the necessary equipment. Nor is there any evidence 
that the airframe manufacturers have pressed the

[[Page 946]]

suppliers for timely delivery of either design modifications or 
equipment. None of the petitions addresses the clear failure to plan 
for and implement a regulatory requirement that was first proposed in 
2005. Only the GAMA petition states that economic circumstances have 
changed enough to warrant a change to the compliance time.
    Despite a dearth of specific comment to the proposed rule on 
compliance time, the FAA is now faced with the discovery by six major 
airframe manufacturers that compliance ``is not feasible'' less than a 
year before it is due. There is nothing to indicate what, if any, 
efforts the petitioners made in the 13 months between the publication 
of the final rule and the FAA's receipt of the first petition. Nor is 
there any indication by the petitioners that they have accelerated any 
effort to comply in the time since they petitioned. It appears they 
have chosen to use that time to seek a change to the rule and to rely 
on the consequences of their inaction falling on the FAA. In at least 
one instance, it is clear that the manufacturer simply decided to stay 
with its original timing for a planned upgrade even though it is well 
after the compliance time mandated in the 2008 final rule.
    The FAA has been put in an untenable position with these petitions. 
The option of granting exemptions to every new aircraft produced and 
delivered to U.S. operators between April 7, 2010, and as late as 2013 
would present a huge burden on the agency and the affected operators. 
Such exemptions would have to be granted to operators on an individual 
aircraft basis when each aircraft is delivered. According to the 
manufacturers' petitions received thus far, this effort would involve 
over 400 airplanes. Further, these airplanes would be granted exemption 
only until they could be modified with the upgraded equipment. As we 
noted in the regulatory evaluation in the NPRM, such retrofits are 
expensive and time consuming, resulting in additional aircraft downtime 
and maintenance expenses for the operator.
    The FAA is unable to conclude from the information presented in the 
petitions that another two to three years is necessary to incorporate 
the changes in newly manufactured aircraft. The petitions contain 
little indication that any concerted effort was undertaken to comply, 
nor was the agency presented evidence as to dates or time of equipment 
delivery that supports the requested extensions. At best, the petitions 
contain reasoning why it is important to get the equipment coordinated 
between aircraft systems, not acceptable reasons why efforts have been 
lacking thus far.
    The FAA is quite aware that the parties that will suffer the effect 
of these failures are the purchasers of new airplanes. Accordingly, the 
FAA is proposing to extend certain compliance dates for the regulations 
adopted in the 2008 final rule.
    This notice proposes extension of the following sections of the 
regulations:
    1. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly 
manufactured airplanes operated under part 121, 125, or 135 would be 
extended until December 6, 2010.
    2. For airplanes operating under parts 121, 125 or 135, datalink 
communications would have to be recorded when datalink communication 
equipment is installed after December 6, 2010.
    3. For the ten-minute backup power source for CVRs, the compliance 
date for part 91 operators (only) would be extended to April 6, 2012.
    4. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly 
manufactured airplanes operated under part 91would be extended until 
April 6, 2012.
    5. For airplanes operating under part 91, datalink communications 
would have to be recorded when datalink communication equipment is 
installed after April 6, 2012.
    These proposed changes to the compliance date are the only ones the 
FAA found to be potentially justified by the petitions submitted. If 
adopted, which is by no means certain, they would provide an additional 
eight months to two years to accomplish what should have been in the 
planning and implementation phases for the 19 months preceding this 
action.
    All other compliance dates established in the 2008 final rule 
remain as originally promulgated. These include the wiring requirements 
for CVRs and DFDRs; 25-hour solid state memory DFDRs; 2-hour solid 
state memory CVRs; the CVR and DFDR housing requirements; and the ten-
minute backup power source for CVRs on aircraft operated under part 
121, 125, or 135.
    We invite comment from the manufacturers and affected operators 
that may not consider this sufficient even with a renewed devotion of 
time and resources. Comments that include specific, realistic examples 
of equipment availability will be considered. These comments should 
include detailed information describing the reason for the lack of 
equipment availability, other options that have been considered and the 
efforts that have been taken to achieve compliance. Generalized 
statements, such as the ones presented in the petitions, are not valid 
evidence that the industry is unable to comply, only that it has chosen 
not to.
    The request regarding additional time for in-service airplanes made 
in AIA/ATA petition, is unsupported by any data on the impact of a 
failure to extend the rule an additional four years. The AIA/ATA 
petition presumes that the regulation will have an impact on all in-
service airplanes, but presented no evidence that the in-service fleet 
will be significantly affected by anything other than the failure of 
manufacturers to comply with the regulations for new aircraft, pushing 
the in-service fleet to the end of the line. We do not accept this 
reasoning, especially for a voluntary equipment installation.
    Accordingly, all of the petitions referenced in this rule are 
denied.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket numbers: FAA-2009-0438, FAA-2009-0441, FAA-2009-0665, 
FAA-2009-0672, FAA-2009-0933, FAA-2009-0963, FAA-2009-1017, FAA-
2009-1173, FAA-2009-1204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in this proposed rule are corrections to certain DFDR and 
CVR regulations in which errors were inadvertently introduced by other 
amendments. Those sections include Sec. Sec.  27.1457(d)(1)(ii), 
27.1459(a)(3)(ii), 29.1457(d)(1)(ii), and 29.1459(a)(3)(ii). These are 
rotorcraft certification rules in which reference is made to airplanes 
rather than rotorcraft.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

[[Page 947]]

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it is to be included in the preamble 
if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not 
prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. 
The reasoning for this determination follows:
    This proposed rule acknowledges that recent economic conditions 
have made it technically and economically difficult for manufacturers 
to certificate and install certain equipment to meet the current 
regulatory compliance dates. If the compliance dates are not extended, 
manufacturers will be unable to deliver aircraft produced after April 
7, 2010 that can be flown under parts 91, 121, 125 or 135. While the 
FAA could issue temporary operating exemptions for these aircraft until 
the equipment becomes available for operators to retrofit, that action 
would involve a significant increase in workload for both the FAA and 
the industry and additional retrofit costs. As the FAA determined in 
the Regulatory Evaluation of the 2008 final rule, the costs of 
retrofitting this equipment (except for the two-hour CVR), including 
the increased downtime, could be greater than the potential benefits 
resulting from the retrofit. Thus, this proposed rule would generate 
positive net benefits in comparison to the options of maintaining the 
existing compliance dates or of granting temporary exemptions and 
retrofitting airplanes with the equipment as it becomes available.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The FAA requests comments with 
supporting justification about the determination of minimal impact.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    The proposed compliance date extension will allow newer and safer 
aircraft to enter the fleet to replace older aircraft more rapidly than 
if the existing compliance date is enforced. The expected outcome would 
be a benefit to small operators that would purchase new aircraft.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would 
reduce costs on both domestic and international entities and thus has a 
neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect 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, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory 
distinctions. Because this proposed rule would apply to the 
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and 
their subsequent operation, it could, if

[[Page 948]]

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in 
Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph Chapter 3, paragraph 312f 
and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include detailed supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, 
Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135 of 
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

    1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    2. Amend Sec.  27.1457 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without 
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  27.1459 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1459  Flight data recorders.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without 
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

    4. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    5. Amend Sec.  29.1457 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 949]]

    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without 
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *
    6. Amend Sec.  29.1459 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1459  Flight data recorders.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without 
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    7. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 
(61 stat. 1180).

    8. Amend Sec.  91.609 by revising paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  91.609  Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (i) All airplanes or rotorcraft required by this section to have a 
cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, that are manufactured 
on or after April 7, 2010, must have a cockpit voice recorder installed 
that also--
    (1) Meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(a), (b), (c), (d)(1), 
(2), (3), (4) and (6), (e), (f) and (g); Sec.  25.1457(a), (b), (c), 
(d)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), (e), (f) and (g); Sec.  27.1457(a), (b), 
(c), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), (e), (f), (g) and (h); or Sec.  
29.1457(a), (b), (c), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), (e), (f), (g) and 
(h) of this chapter, as applicable; and
    (2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of recorded information using 
a recorder that meets the standards of TSO-C123a, or later revision.
    (3) For all airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after April 
6, 2012, meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(d)(5), Sec.  
25.1457(d)(5), Sec.  27.1457(d)(5) or Sec.  29.457(d)(5) of this 
chapter, as applicable.
    (j) All airplanes or rotorcraft required by this section to have a 
cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, that install 
datalink communication equipment on or after April 6, 2012, must record 
all datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable 
to the aircraft.
* * * * *
    9. Amend appendix E to part 91 by revising footnote 5 to read as 
set forth below.

Appendix E to Part 91--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \5\ For Pitch Control Position only, for all aircraft 
manufactured on or after April 6, 2012, the sampling interval (per 
second) is 8. Each input must be recorded at this rate. Alternately 
sampling inputs (interleaving) to meet this sampling interval is 
prohibited.

    10. Amend appendix F to part 91 by revising footnote 4 to read as 
set forth below.

Appendix F to Part 91--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \4\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after April 6, 2012, the 
sampling interval per second is 4.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

    11. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.

    12. Amend Sec.  121.359 by revising paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.359  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (k) All airplanes required by this part to have a cockpit voice 
recorder and a flight data recorder, that install datalink 
communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must record all 
datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable to 
the airplane.
    13. Amend appendix M to part 121 by revising footnote 18, to read 
as follows:

Appendix M to Part 121--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, 
the seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be 
recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to 
meet this sampling interval is prohibited.
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH 
AIRCRAFT

    14. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

    15. Amend Sec.  125.227 by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  125.227  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (i) All turbine engine-powered airplanes required by this part to 
have a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, that install 
datalink communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must 
record all datalink messages as required by the certification rule 
applicable to the airplane.
    16. Amend appendix E to part 125 by revising footnote 18, to read 
as set forth below.

Appendix E to Part 125--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, 
the seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be 
recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to 
meet this sampling interval is prohibited.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

    17. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

    18. Amend Sec.  135.151 by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  135.151  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (h) All airplanes or rotorcraft required by this part to have a 
cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, that install 
datalink communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must 
record all datalink messages as required by the certification rule 
applicable to the aircraft.
    19. Amend appendix C to part 135 by revising footnote 4 to read as 
set forth below.

Appendix C to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \4\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, 
the sampling interval per second is 4.

    20. Amend appendix E to part 135 by revising footnote 3 to read as 
set forth below.

Appendix E to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *

[[Page 950]]

    \3\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, 
the sampling interval per second is 4.

    21. Amend appendix F to part 135 by revising footnote 18 to read as 
set forth below.

Appendix F to Part 135--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
    \18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, 
the seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be 
recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to 
meet this sampling interval is prohibited.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 2010.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>