21 August 2002
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: August 21, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 162)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54319-54324]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21au02-15]
[[Page 54319]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135
Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Requirements; Final Rule
[[Page 54320]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No.: FAA-2002-11705; Amendment No. 121-292, 125-39 and 135-85]
RIN 2120-AH81
Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the flight data recorder regulations by
expanding the recording ranges for certain data parameters for all
covered airplanes. This amendment is necessary because certain
airplanes are unable to record certain flight parameters under the
existing resolution criteria without undergoing unintended and
expensive retrofit.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 20, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Davis, Flight Standards Service,
Air Transportation Division, AFS-201A, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8166; facsimile (202) 267-5229, e-mail gary.davis@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/
search).
(2) On the search page type in the last five digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Government Printing Office's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by submitting 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 amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/
sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us 9-AWA-
SBREFA@faa.gov.
Background
The regulations adopted by the FAA in August of 1997 (62 FR 38362)
substantially improved the requirements for flight data recorders and
mandated that up to 88 parameters of flight data of recorded for
diagnostic use in the event of an accident or serious incident. Most of
the improvements in the recording capacity did not directly affect
Airbus airplanes, however, because almost all of the additional
parameters required by the FAA had been incorporated previously into
Airbus product specifications. In the case of a few parameters,
however, Airbus airplanes were unable to meet the parameter recording
requirements adopted in the rule. In 1997, the FAA stated that it had
tailored the rule to avoid major equipment redesign or retrofits. The
new requirements were to be met in stages, with the first 34 parameters
being required at the next heavy maintenance check after August 18,
1999, but no later than August 20, 2001; followed by parameters 35
through 57 for aircraft manufactured after August 18, 2000, upon
delivery; and finally parameters 58 through 88 for aircraft
manufactured after August 19, 2002, upon delivery.
On August 24, 1999 (64 FR 46117), the FAA amended the digital
flight data recorder (DFDR) resolution and sampling requirements for
several parameters for Airbus airplanes. The amendments addressed only
the first 34 parameters. Similarly, on August 24, 2000 (64 FR 51741),
the FAA revised the DFDR regulations, making technical changes related
to parameters 35 through 57 to accommodate Airbus airplanes.
Petition for Rulemaking
By letter dated February 22, 2002, Airbus petitioned the FAA to
further amend Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix E to part 125. The
letter states that Airbus had completed its audit of compliance
requirements for parameters 58 through 88, and identified three
specific technical issues of compliance for which it sought relief.
Specifically, Airbus seeks minor technical changes to the recording
requirements for parameter 83 (cockpit trim control input position--
roll), parameter 84 (cockpit trim control input position--yaw), and
parameter 88 (cockpit flight control input force--rudder). However,
since its February letter, Airbus has withdrawn its request for changes
to the requirements for parameter 88.
Airbus notes that the FAA, in adopting the new DFDR recording
resolution requirements, did not intend to require equipment redesign
or retrofit, and that the requested specification changes would be
consistent with that intent. Airbus airplanes have been recording these
parameters for many years, and Airbus claims that there would be no
safety or analytic benefit to replace sensors that are virtually
compliant with the regulatory specifications. According to Airbus, the
deviations to current resolution requirements they are seeking are
small, and are consistent with the smallest increment employed in the
parameters for actual measurement of the respective flight control
surfaces.
Specifically, Airbus seeks changes to the DFDR recording
requirements for the following parameters as contained in Appendix M to
part 121 and appendix E to part 125 of 14 CFR:
Parameter 83, cockpit trim control input position--roll, is
required to be resolved to 0.028 degrees (0.2% of operational range of
7 degrees). On A310 and A300-600 series aircraft this is
implemented with a resolution of 0.096 degrees. Airbus asserts that
this resolution is nearly identical to the smallest increment used in
deflection of the roll control surfaces for each model, which is 0.092
degrees in the A310 aircraft and 0.091 degrees in the A300-600
aircraft. Airbus states that achieving the additional resolution would
provide no substantive benefit. Airbus requests that a footnote be
added in Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix E to part 125, to reflect
this deviation for the airplane models noted.
Parameter 84, cockpit trim control input position--yaw, is required
to be resolved to 0.08 degrees (0.2% of operational range of
20 degrees). On A318/319/320/321 series aircraft, this is
[[Page 54321]]
implemented with a resolution of 0.088 degrees. Airbus asserts that
this resolution surpasses the smallest increment used to deflect the
yaw control surfaces for each model, which is 0.112 degrees for the
A320 family. Airbus requests that a footnote be added in Appendix M to
part 121 and Appendix E to part 125, to reflect this deviation for the
airplane models noted.
Airbus states that U.S. operators of the affected airplanes would
incur substantial costs associated with being involved in the redesign
and installation of new DFDR equipment to achieve precise compliance
with the recording resolution requirements of the current regulations.
In addition, if new aircraft were delivered with DFDR recording
equipment that differs from that installed on existing aircraft,
operators would have to maintain the equipment separately, increasing
recordkeeping requirements and costs. Airbus states that these added
costs would not be balanced by any increase in safety or investigative
capability. Accordingly, Airbus concludes that it is in the public
interest to make the requested regulatory modifications.
Discussion of Comments
On April 22, 2002, the FAA published a notice of petition for
rulemaking, with a request for comments, discussing this Airbus request
(67 FR 19534). The comment period for that notice (Notice No. PE-2002-
28) closed on May 22, 2002. In response to that notice we received two
generally favorable comments, one from the Air Transport Association
(ATA) and another from the Boeing Airplane Company (Boeing). The ATA
supports the Airbus petition, reaffirming that the 1997 rule was not
intended to necessitate retrofit modifications. The ATA agrees with the
petitioner's claim that the required changes to the production
configurations and the resulting differences with the configurations
for airplanes already in service would be neither cost effective nor
beneficial in mishap investigations.
Boeing concurs with the requested revisions to the parameter 83 and
parameter 84 resolutions, stating that they are minor and would not
significantly affect the ability of accident investigators to perform
their investigation. However, Boeing questioned the need to revise the
accuracy requirement for parameter 88, and is concerned that any
changes to the rule might affect the method of compliance for which it
had received approval. Since Airbus withdrew its request to amend the
recording requirements of parameter 88, no change to that parameter is
included in this amendment.
FAA's Response
The FAA considered carefully all the comments received. Because no
commenter opposed the requested changes to parameters 83 and 84, the
FAA has determined that the changes would be in the public interest.
Airbus requested that these amendments be codified as footnotes to
the affected appendixes. After considerable discussion with technical
representatives and accident investigators, however, the FAA has
determined the requested changes can be made to the appendices and made
available to all airplanes without compromising resources available to
accident investigators. The incremental difference in the measurements
obtained are considered insignificant. Further, the FAA notes that the
same parameters and resolution requirements appear in Appendix F to
part 135. Because the changes requested will apply to all airplanes
subject to parts 121 and 125, the FAA finds that the same changes are
appropriate for the part 135 requirements. Accordingly, in Part 121
Appendix M, Part 125 Appendix E, and Part 135 Appendix F, resolution
recording requirements for parameters 83 and 84 will be amended to read
0.7% and 0.3% of full range, respectively.
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3)) authorize
agencies to dispense with certain notice procedures for rules when they
find ``good cause'' to do so. Under section 553(b)(3)(B), the
requirements of notice and opportunity for comment do not apply when
the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Section 553(d)(3) allows an agency, upon finding good cause, to make a
rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed
effective date requirement in section 553.
The FAA finds that the requirements for notice and public comment
to this amendment have been met because the FAA published for comment
Airbus's original petition for rulemaking. Further, if the changes are
delayed awaiting additional public notice and comment, regulated
entities would be unable to comply with an August 20, 2002, compliance
deadline. Therefore, the FAA finds that further notice and comment are
unnecessary and that good cause exists for making these amendment
effective on August 20, 2002.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has determined that there are no new requirements for
information collection associated with this 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
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade
Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal
agency to 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 requires agencies
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 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.)
Regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-specified
analyses are not required. The Department of Transportation Order DOT
2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis,
and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact
is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full Evaluation, a
statement to
[[Page 54322]]
that effect and the basis for it is included in the proposed
regulation. The FAA has determined that there are no costs associated
with this final rule. Instead, this rule change relieves operators of
Airbus airplanes from a cost that would have been inadvertently imposed
on them in the adoption of the 1997 regulations. This cost would have
been imposed beginning on August 20, 2002. This change effectuates the
original intent of the 1997 regulations.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this rule (1) has
benefits which justify its costs; (2) 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;
(3) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (4) will have little effect on international trade; and (5)
does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
The purpose of this rule is to eliminate the necessity to
incorporate unnecessary changes into an existing type of airplane that
already meets the requirements of the rule except for minor variations
in the resolution recording requirement. The FAA has determined that
allowing the continued resolution-recording at a slightly different
value will not impact safety or the collection of accident
investigation data. This rule would result in cost savings because air
carriers would not have to make minor, but costly, changes and
subsequently pass those costs on to the public in the form of higher
ticket prices.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective 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 that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act 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 proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act. However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
This final rule will relieve unnecessary costs to operators of
certain airplanes. Therefore, the FAA expects this rule to impose no
cost on small entities. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or 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 rulemaking
and has determined that it will reduce costs to U.S. operators of
certain airplanes but will have a minimal effect on international
trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal Mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 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 a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation)
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.''
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
no apply.
Executive Order 3132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a
categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been
determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under
the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug
abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter 1 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
1. 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, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597-647.
2. Amend Appendix M to part 121 to revise numbers 83 and 84 to read
as follows:
[[Page 54323]]
Appendix M to Part 121--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications
The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and
accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data
recorded must be correlated in time to within one second.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seconds
Accuracy per
Parameters Range (sensor input) sampling Resolution Remarks
interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
83. Cockpit trim control Full Range...... 5% 1 0.7% of full Where mechanical
input position--roll. range. means for
control inputs
are not
available,
cockpit display
trim position
should be
recorded.
84. Cockpit trim control Full range...... 5% 1 0.3% of full Where mechanical
input position--yaw. range. means for
control input
are not
available,
cockpit display
trim positions
should be
recorded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
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
3. 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.
4. Amend Appendix E to part 125 to revise item numbers 83 and 84 to
read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 125--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications
The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and
accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data
recorded must be correlated in time to within one second.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seconds per
Parameters Range Accuracy sampling Resolution Remarks
(sensor input) interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
83. Cockpit trim control Full Range...... 5% 1 0.7% of full Where
input position--roll. range. mechanical
means for
control inputs
are not
available,
cockpit
display trim
position
should be
recorded.
84. Cockpit trim control Full Range...... 5% 1 0.3% of full Where
input position--yaw. range. mechanical
means for
control input
are not
available,
cockpit
display trim
positions
should be
recorded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44709,
44705, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
6. Amend Appendix F to part 135 revise item numbers 83 and 84 to
read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 135--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications
The recorded values must meet the designated range, resolution, and
accuracy requirements during dynamic and static conditions. All data
recorded must be correlated in time to within one second.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seconds per
Parameters Range Accuracy sampling Resolution Remarks
(Sensor input) interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
83. Cockpit trim control Full Range...... 5% 1 0.7% of full Where
input position--roll. range. mechanical
means for
control inputs
are not
available,
cockpit
display trim
position
should be
recorded.
[[Page 54324]]
84. Cockpit trim control Full Range...... 5% 1 0.3% of full Where
input position--yaw. range. mechanical
means for
control input
are not
available,
cockpit
display trim
positions
should be
recorded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2002.
Monte R. Belger,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-21171 Filed 8-19-02; 9:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M