73 FR 12542, FInal Rule

12542

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 91, 121,
125, 129 and 135
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20245; Amendment
No. 23–58, 25–124, 27–43, 29–50, 91–300,
121–338, 125–54, 129–45, and 135–113]
RIN 2120-AH88

Revisions to Cockpit Voice Recorder
and Digital Flight Data Recorder
Regulations
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: This final rule amends
cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and digital
flight data recorder (DFDR) regulations
affecting certain air carriers, operators,
and aircraft manufacturers. This final
rule increases the duration of certain
CVR recordings, increases the data
recording rate for certain DFDR
parameters, requires physical separation
of the DFDR and CVR, improves the
reliability of the power supplies to both
the CVR and DFDR, and requires that
certain datalink communications
received on an aircraft be recorded if
datalink communication equipment is
installed. This final rule is based on
recommendations issued by the
National Transportation Safety Board
following its investigations of several
accidents and incidents, and includes
other revisions the FAA has determined
are necessary. These changes to CVR
and DFDR systems are intended to
improve the quality and quantity of
information recorded, and increase the
potential for retaining important
information needed for accident and
incident investigations.
DATES: These amendments become
effective April 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions contact: Timothy W.
Shaver, Avionics Systems Branch,
Aircraft Certification Service, AIR–130,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
385–4686; facsimile (202) 385–4651; email tim.shaver@faa.gov. 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
karen.petronis@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

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. Statement of the Problem
For many years, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
experienced difficulties while
investigating aircraft accidents and
incidents. The information recorded on
cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and
Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs)
has not always been sufficient to
support the NTSB’s investigations. The
problems encountered by the NTSB
include the limited duration of CVR
recordings preceding an incident, and
the loss of power to both CVRs and
DFDRs. These issues arose in the
investigation of the following accidents
and incidents: Alaska Airlines, Inc.
flight 261 on January 31, 2000; EgyptAir
flight 990 on October 31, 1999; Delta Air
Lines, Inc. flight 2461 on December 15,
1998; Swissair flight 111 on September
2, 1998; SilkAir flight 185 on December
19, 1997; ValuJet Airlines flight 592 on
May 11, 1996; Trans World Airlines,
Inc. flight 800 on July 17, 1996; and
ValuJet Airlines flight 597 on June 8,
1995. The notice of proposed
rulemaking that preceded this final rule
was published on February 28, 2005
(‘‘Revisions to Cockpit Voice Recorder
and Digital Flight Data Recorder
Regulations,’’ 70 FR 9752) and discusses
these accidents and incidents in more
detail, starting on page 9753.
B. NTSB Recommendations
Based on its findings following these
investigations, the NTSB issued five
safety recommendations for improving
the flight recorder systems on all aircraft
required to carry a CVR and a DFDR.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Recommendation No. A–96–89.
Within two years, require all aircraft
required to have a CVR to be retrofitted
with a CVR that receives, on dedicated
channels, (1) uninterrupted input from
the boom or mask microphone and
headphones of each crewmember; and
(2) uninterrupted input from an area
microphone. During these recordings, a
sidetone must be produced only when
the transmitter or interphone is selected.
Finally, all audio signals received by
hand-held microphones must be
recorded on the respective flight
crewmember’s channel when keyed to
the ‘‘ON’’ position.
Recommendation No. A–96–171.
Require that all newly manufactured
CVRs intended for use on airplanes have
a minimum recording duration of two
hours.
Recommendation No. A–99–16. By
January 1, 2005, retrofit all airplanes
that are required to carry a CVR and an
FDR with a CVR that (1) meets the
standards of the Technical Standard
Order on Cockpit Voice Recorder
Systems, TSO-C123a, or later revision;
(2) is capable of recording the last two
hours of audio; and (3) is fitted with a
10-minute independent power source
that is located with the CVR and that
automatically engages and provides 10
minutes of operation whenever power to
the recorder ceases, either by normal
shutdown or by a loss of power to the
bus.
Recommendation No. A–99–17.
Require all aircraft manufactured after
January 1, 2003, that are required to
carry a CVR and a DFDR, to be equipped
with two combination (CVR/DFDR)
recording systems. One system should
be located as close to the cockpit as
practicable and the other as far aft as
practicable. Both recording systems
should be capable of recording all
mandatory data parameters covering the
previous 25 hours of operation and all
cockpit audio and controller-pilot
datalink communications for the
previous two hours of operation. The
system located near the cockpit should
be provided with an independent power
source that engages automatically and
provides 10 minutes of operation
whenever normal aircraft power ceases.
The aft system should be powered by
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation without
jeopardizing service to essential or
emergency loads. The system near the
cockpit should be powered by the bus
that provides the second highest
reliability for operation without
jeopardizing service to essential or
emergency loads.
Recommendation No. A–99–18.
Amend § 25.1457 (for CVRs) and

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

§ 25.1459 (for DFDRs) to require that
CVRs, DFDRs, and redundant
combination CVR/DFDR units be
powered from separate generator buses
with the highest reliability.
C. Summary of the NPRM
In February 2005, we proposed
changes to the regulations that address
the NTSB’s recommendations (70 FR
9752; February 28, 2005)(the NPRM).
We agreed with recommendation Nos.
A–96–89, A–96–171, A–99–18, and
parts of Nos. A–99–16 and A–99–17.
In the NPRM, we proposed that all
CVRs be able to retain the last two hours
of cockpit conversation, and that a
better technical standard for equipment
be mandatory. We proposed that aircraft
carry an independent power source to
power CVRs for 10 minutes after main
power sources fail. We also proposed
language to standardize across operating
parts when a CVR is operated.
We proposed wiring requirements
that would ensure that each CVR and
DFDR receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of each recorder
without jeopardizing service to essential
or emergency loads. Each recorder also
must remain powered for as long as
possible without jeopardizing
emergency operation of the aircraft.
These requirements would apply to
newly manufactured aircraft.
We proposed that CVRs and DFDRs be
installed in separate containers in all
airplanes; rotorcraft would be allowed
to have a single combined unit for both
recorders. For aircraft that have both a
CVR and a DFDR, we proposed that the
interphone communications
requirements described in the
certification rules apply to all part 23
and part 25 airplanes.
We proposed increased data recording
rates for certain flight control
parameters that would apply to both
airplanes and rotorcraft.
We proposed that datalink
communications be recorded when
datalink systems are installed on
airplanes after a certain date, and we
sought comment on the nature and
scope of what should be required to be
recorded, acknowledging that the state
of the technology is still developing.
We did not propose to adopt the
NTSB recommendation that the 10minute CVR power supply be installed
as a retrofit on current aircraft, that
aircraft carry a deployable recorder
system, or that each airplane carry two
complete recording systems. In
evaluating these recommendations, we
determined that the anticipated costs
were too great to justify any potential
benefit, or that there was insufficient

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

data to compare probable costs and
benefits. We did request comment on
each of these items.
A more detailed discussion of each
proposed change can be found in the
NPRM document on pages 9755–9762.
Discussion of Comments
A. General Summary
The FAA received 55 submissions
from 53 commenters (two commenters
each submitted two comments) in
response to the NPRM.
Six commenters supported the
proposal in its entirety. Thirty-two
commenters generally supported the
intent, but offered detailed alternatives
or changes to various sections. The
supporting commenters included
airframe manufacturers, aircraft
operators, industry associations, an
accident investigator, and several
individuals.
Three commenters opposed the
proposal in its entirety and requested
that we either abandon or postpone the
proposed requirements. One commenter
did not specifically state opposition, but
it was inferred from the comment. Eight
commenters objected to the proposed
changes specifically for part 27 and part
29 rotorcraft, for part 91 and part 135
aircraft, or for aircraft with fewer than
60 seats. Some of these commenters also
questioned the FAA’s analysis of the
effect of the proposed rule on small
businesses. The opposing commenters
included aircraft operators, industry
associations, and individuals.
In the three remaining comments, one
individual commenter offered a specific
language change to the proposed rule
without stating support or opposition to
the rest of it. The other two comments
were joint submissions from four
members of the U.S. House of
Representatives that expressed strong
support for the use of deployable
recorder systems.
B. Proposed Retrofits for Part 91 and
Part 135 Aircraft
Two parts of the proposed rule would
affect aircraft currently operating under
parts 91 and 135 by requiring
equipment retrofits. These include the
requirements that CVRs use solid state
memory (replacing magnetic tape) and
have two hours of recording capability,
up from as little as 15 minutes in part
91.
The National Air Transportation
Association (NATA) expressed
disappointment with what it considers
the agency’s failure to include a
meaningful review of the impact of
these two proposed requirements on
part 91 and part 135 operators. The

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12543

NATA provided examples of aircraft
models it does not believe were
considered, as well as the types of
information that the association asserts
should have been collected by the FAA
for analysis. The NATA suggested itself
as a source of the data, but did not
include with its comment any of the
data it suggested the FAA collect.
The National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA) submitted a similar
comment, indicating that a broad
segment of on-demand operators would
have to comply with the proposed
regulations, but that there was no
indication that we properly evaluated
their effect on those operators. As an
example, the NBAA noted that the cost
of development of a supplemental type
certificate that would be needed for
more than 15,000 aircraft was not
determined or accounted for in the
regulatory evaluation.
Similarly, the Regional Airline
Association (RAA) said that the
regulatory evaluation does not
adequately describe the benefits of the
proposed equipment retrofit, and does
not feel that there is enough information
in the regulatory evaluation for them to
comment on adequately.
These associations urged the FAA to
retract those parts of the rule that affect
these operators, or to take no further
action until more comprehensive data
can be gathered and analyzed. Each
commenter believes that the cost
estimates would be significantly higher
than those presented in the NPRM.
We reviewed our analysis of the
impact of the two CVR changes
proposed as retrofits for part 91 and 135
airplanes (2-hour recorders and
independent power supply), and we
have concluded that our regulatory
evaluation did not include several
issues raised by the commenters. Since
we are not able to quantify the potential
burden of the two CVR retrofit
requirements on these operators, we
have removed the two CVR
requirements from the final rule for
aircraft operating under parts 91 and
135. For other reasons discussed below,
we are also not adopting the proposed
‘checklist to checklist’ language for part
91 or part 135. New applicability
sections will retain the same checklist
language as exists in the affected part.
However, we are adopting the
datalink recording requirement for these
two operating parts. If an operator of an
aircraft under part 91 or 135 voluntarily
installs datalink equipment after two
years from the effective date of the rule,
the requirement for datalink recordation
will apply. This is consistent with the
requirement facing operators under
parts 121 and 125, and we have no

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12544

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

reason to discriminate between these
operating rules. We are also adopting
the requirement for separate containers
for CVRs and DFDRs (except for
rotorcraft) as it imposes no cost since it
is a codification of current FAA policy
and no combined recorder has ever been
approved for installation on an airplane.
The NPRM also contained several
other requirements that will affect only
newly manufactured airplanes that may
operate under parts 91 and 135. The
commenters provided no reason why
those upgrades that must be
incorporated at the time of aircraft
manufacture should not be applicable to
all categories of aircraft regardless of the
eventual operator. In general, the
proposed CVR and DFDR upgrades on
wiring, data rates, and interphone
communications will be adopted as
proposed for all newly manufactured
aircraft. Similarly, the CVR
requirements for 2-hour solid state
recorders and the addition of a backup
power system will remain for all newly
manufactured aircraft. Again, we are
unable to draw a distinction between
the eventual operating regulations for
aircraft of any size that have yet to be
manufactured.
C. CVR Recording Duration
The FAA proposed that all CVRs be
able to retain the last two hours of
cockpit audio. Both the NTSB and the
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
noted that the short duration of
available cockpit audio hindered the
investigation of several accidents.
The Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA) did not support the proposal to
increase CVR recording time because
the FAA did not propose any increase
in the privacy protections regarding the
access and use of information recorded
on a CVR. The ALPA stated that existing
protections are inadequate despite years
of its attempts to change the standard.
We recognize that ALPA and others
have concerns about the use of CVR
data, and we continue to work to
address these concerns. We are unable
to concur with the conclusion that those
concerns outweigh the investigative
need for more information, especially
when it is so readily available and
affordable. The history of accident
investigation contains several examples
of CVR recordings that begin well into
a conversation of the problem under
investigation. The adverse effect on
safety of these abbreviated recordings
cannot be ignored.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
(Boeing) agreed that the additional data
from a longer duration recorder would
have been a significant benefit in
accident investigation. Boeing notes that

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

the proposed requirement for part 129
airplanes, however, does not specify a
recording duration, which it noted may
have been an omission.
The language we proposed for
§ 129.22 (now § 129.24) would require
the CVR on a U.S. registered airplane to
record the information that would be
required to be recorded if the aircraft
were operated under part 121, 125, or
135. This requirement captures the
proposed requirement in those parts for
two hours of CVR recording time. No
change to the final rule is necessary for
the two-hour duration to apply to part
129 airplanes.
In addition to its comment on the
economic value of the retrofit, the RAA
questioned the value of a two hour
recorder on flights that are on average
much shorter. Since many of the RAA’s
constituents operate flights of less than
60 minutes, the RAA stated that the
current 30 minute recording time is
sufficient to capture relevant voice data.
Although we agreed with the
commenters concerning the evaluation
of retrofit costs, the FAA cannot agree
that a different standard should apply to
certain aircraft when they are in
regional operation. The benefit of this
additional information is the same
regardless of individual flight duration.
Further, aircraft transfer between routes
and operating parts, and none of the
aircraft cited by the RAA are limited by
design to flights of 30 minutes or less.
Smiths Aerospace, LLC (Smiths)
commented that the standard proposed
in the final rule for CVRs, TSO–C123a,
mirrors the standard set forth in
EUROCAE document ED–56, which
allows for the combined (merged)
recording of three non-area microphone
signals into a single recording after the
first 30 minutes. Smiths suggested that
allowing combined audio for 90 of the
proposed 120 minutes will reduce the
quality and effectiveness of the
recording. Smiths also proposed
language that would specifically
prohibit the use of magnetic tape
recorders, since it was the agency’s
stated intent in the NPRM.
While an interesting technical
consideration, the FAA did not propose
a change to the TSO standard (which is
based on ED–56) in the NPRM, and the
process for changing TSOs is separate
and complex. We also believe that a
requirement for two hours of recording
time is enough to eliminate the use of
magnetic tape recorders for those
aircraft subject to the requirement.
Further, Smiths did not indicate where
this language would be inserted, and a
change in the retrofit applicability for
parts 91 and 135 would simply add to

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the confusion about current
requirements.
No change to the 2-hour recording
duration has been made in the final rule
based on these comments.
D. CVR Independent Power Supply
Seven commenters (ALPA, Boeing,
Smiths, the NTSB, the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA), Radiant
Power Corporation (Radiant) and
Airbus) expressed concern that the
proposed requirement for a Recorder
Independent Power Supply (RIPS) for
CVRs did not address installation
issues. These commenters want to
minimize the possibility of an
inadvertent disconnect from the CVR
that could result from damage to the
RIPS or to exposed, lengthy wiring.
These commenters suggested several
installation solutions, including:
• Installing a combination kit of the
CVR plus the RIPS (AIA), or integrating
the RIPS in the CVR (Airbus, Radiant,
Smiths); and
• Co-locating the CVR and the RIPS
(ALPA) or locating the RIPS as close as
practical to the CVR (Airbus, Boeing,
NTSB).
The FAA agrees with the concern
raised by these commenters. We have
considered the various installation
solutions suggested by the commenters,
and have determined that requiring the
RIPS to be installed as close as
practicable to the CVR is the best
solution. This configuration will
minimize the distance between the CVR
and the RIPS and the amount of wiring
necessary, decreasing the potential for a
power failure affecting the CVR when
main power is lost and the RIPS unit
engages. Therefore, the final rule
contains a requirement that the RIPS be
installed as close as practicable to the
CVR.
As to the integration of the RIPS into
the CVR unit, we do not have enough
data to support either mandating or
prohibiting a combined RIPS/CVR unit.
The decision to combine the units is
best left to the system designer for
individual aircraft. Our TSO–C155 and
other industry standards allow for
certification of RIPS as either a
combined or stand-alone unit.
Combined units would meet the ‘‘as
close as practicable’’ standard of the
regulation.
Boeing noted the term ‘‘independent’’
could be interpreted to mean the RIPS
must be a separate piece of equipment
and cannot be incorporated into the
CVR. Boeing suggested adding a new
subparagraph to § 25.1457 that would
allow, but does not require,
incorporation of the RIPS as part of the
CVR.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
As stated, the purpose of the RIPS
equipment is to ensure the CVR
continues to function for 10 minutes
following the loss of its main power
source by having its own independent
power source. The term ‘‘independent’’
does not describe the location of the
RIPS as it relates to the CVR. In TSOC155, we state that the RIPS may be a
part of the CVR or separate from it.
Five commenters (AIA, ALPA,
Boeing, L3 Communications (L3) and
the NTSB) suggested the final rule
should contain a 4-year retrofit RIPS
requirement similar to that proposed for
the 30-minute-to-2-hour CVR
conversion. The NTSB stated the
benefits of such a requirement vastly
outweigh the additional costs. Boeing
agreed, stating that a RIPS retrofit would
have significant value for in-service
aircraft. The ALPA and AIA support a
RIPS retrofit requirement for all aircraft
operating under part 121, while L3
noted that it had anticipated the need
for such equipment, and that their
product development is complete and
represents an available, cost-effective
solution.
While the FAA recognizes the benefits
of expanding the RIPS requirement
beyond newly manufactured aircraft, we
remain unable to mandate retrofit as a
cost-beneficial change. When we
considered the option for the NPRM, we
found that the cost of a RIPS retrofit was
considerable and the burden on current
operators would be substantial. Even if
the equipment is already available, a
RIPS retrofit could easily require major
alterations and extensive aircraft
rework. While expressing their support,
the commenters did not provide any
data that changes our conclusion.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

E. RIPS on Rotorcraft
Three commenters, Bell Helicopter
Textron Inc. (Bell), Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) and
the Helicopter Association International
(HAI), recommended the RIPS
requirement not apply to part 27 and 29
rotorcraft. Bell stated the NPRM failed
to make a case for small to medium
rotorcraft (fewer than 20 passengers)
and noted that these aircraft are much
less likely to suffer the types of events
and failures that occur in fixed wing
aircraft.
Eurocopter stated that a RIPS
requirement is not relevant for rotorcraft
for two reasons, first citing three
EUROCAE documents that forbid
shutdown of a CVR by the crew.
Second, when the CVR is already
powered by the safest electrical power
bus, a RIPS would not decrease the
probability of a failure, but would add

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

substantial installation and annual
costs.
The lack of historical data supporting
a need for RIPS for CVRs in rotorcraft
was also cited by HAI. It noted that the
proposed rule is directed at transport
category airplanes, where RIPS can be
justified, but does not make the case for
small to medium rotorcraft certificated
under part 27 or part 29. The HAI stated
that the increase in system weight, cost
and complexity would provide little or
no enhancement to safety.
As a consequence of the proposed
RIPS installation, Columbia Helicopters,
Inc. (Columbia) asked the FAA to
consider possible unwanted
consequences on helicopters operating
under part 133 external load operation
(non-passenger carrying) rules.
Columbia noted that the added weight
and operating cost of a RIPS might
discourage these operators from
voluntarily installing CVRs. Columbia
suggested language limiting the RIPS
requirement to passenger carrying
operations.
The final rule includes part 27 and 29
rotorcraft with fewer than 20 passengers
in the RIPS requirement, as proposed.
The purpose of the RIPS requirement is
to record additional pilot
communications, environmental noises
and other information (such as from a
cockpit-mounted area microphone) if all
power is lost. A loss of power is
possible on aircraft of all types. We are
unable to distinguish rotorcraft from
other aircraft when the possibility of
power loss is considered, and the
benefits are considered the same. We do
not require compliance with EUROCAE
standards; our regulations must reflect
our requirements.
The FAA does not agree the RIPS
requirement might discourage part 133
operators from voluntarily installing
CVRs. The RIPS requirement is for
newly manufactured aircraft whose
operating rules require a CVR. There is
no mandated RIPS retrofit if a CVR is
installed on an aircraft that does not
require one for operation.
The CVR and RIPS TSOs provide the
minimum performance standards for
this equipment. However, neither one
requires that RIPS be installed; that is
done by regulation. If a part 133
operator voluntarily chooses to install a
CVR, it is not currently required to also
install the RIPS, nor is the operator
prevented from installing a RIPS. This
decision is totally up to the part 133
operator. Therefore, we do not agree
with the commenter that adding the
RIPS requirement to parts 27 and 29
would affect the decision to voluntarily
install a CVR.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12545

F. RIPS Duration Requirement
Three commenters (Boeing and two
individuals) requested that the FAA
change the duration of the RIPS power
requirement. Boeing requested that the
requirement be changed from 10
minutes to 10±1 minutes, to prevent
erasure or overwriting of valuable data,
and to be consistent with TSO C–155 for
RIPS, and other industry standards from
EUROCAE’s ED–112 (Minimum
Operational Performance Specification
for Crash Protected Airborne Recorder
Systems) and ARINC 777 (Recorder
Independent Power Supply). If adopted,
Boeing suggested that the final rule state
that the ‘‘10±1 minutes’’ means the
backup power source must operate at
least 9 minutes, but not longer than 11
minutes.
One individual commenter suggested
increasing the time to 30 minutes
because 10 minutes is too short a time
period to record everything during a
power failure. The commenter provided
no details or examples of the need for
30 minutes. A second individual stated
that the 10-minute standard is
insufficient, but did not specify what
the duration should be.
The FAA agrees with Boeing that the
final rule should be consistent with the
TSO and industry standards. The final
rule requires the RIPS to provide 10±1
minutes of electrical power to operate
both the cockpit voice recorder and
cockpit area microphone. We are not
including the additional suggested
language since the documents cited by
Boeing establish that 10±1 minutes
means the backup power source shall
run at least 9 minutes, but not longer
than 11 minutes, and repetition of the
language is not necessary.
The other commenters did not explain
why the international standard of 10
minutes is not appropriate nor provide
any other support for their positions.
G. Other RIPS Issues
Airbus stated that two years is not
enough time to integrate a RIPS into
current aircraft designs. Airbus stated
that TSO–C155 requires that a RIPS
system provide both a failure
monitoring function and indications to
the flightcrew. Airbus requested that the
compliance time be changed to four
years, to account for the modifications,
qualification and certification of RIPS
equipment.
We agree that RIPS installation on
newly manufactured aircraft will
require integration into the existing
warning and indication systems.
However, Airbus did not provide us
with any specific data to support its
position that this requirement could not

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12546

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

be accomplished two years after this
final rule. Further, no other airframe
manufacturer expressed this concern.
The 2-year compliance date for the
installation of RIPS into newly
manufactured airplanes is adopted as
proposed.
Airbus and Boeing each noted that the
CVR may also provide power for the
cockpit area microphone and associated
electronics, such as a preamplifier.
Since the proposed RIPS requirement
only applies to the CVR, they expressed
concern that the additional equipment
may not be powered and would render
the CVR useless despite its own power.
Each commenter suggested that
language be added to § 25.1457 that
addresses a continuation of power to all
parts of the CVR system required for
recording area microphone audio input.
The FAA agrees with Boeing and
Airbus. In addition to the reference for
10±1 minutes of electrical power
discussed above, the regulation has been
changed to include power to operate
both the cockpit voice recorder and the
cockpit-mounted area microphone.
AirTran Airways (AirTran) requested
that any RIPS requirement ensure CVR
interchangeability so that operators will
not have to maintain separate CVR
inventories for aircraft that have the
RIPS and those that do not.
While we recognize that CVR
interchangeability is desirable, the type
of CVR (and RIPS) on a given aircraft is
driven by installation and component
design, not by regulation. The CVR and
RIPS each have a TSO (as well as
ARINC standards) that will ensure that
as long as an operator uses these
components, interchangeability should
not be an issue. AirTran and other
operators need to provide input to the
manufacturers of airframes and CVRs
during the development of RIPS
equipment. The final rule does not
address CVR interchangeability.
H. CVR and DFDR Wiring Requirements

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

1. Single Electrical Failure
We proposed that CVRs and DFDRs be
installed so that no single electrical
failure could disable the recorders.
Bell requested the FAA exclude part
27 and part 29 rotorcraft with fewer
than 20 passengers from the
requirement that no single electrical
failure will disable both the CVR and
DFDR. Bell referred to historical data
presented by the United Kingdom
Aircraft Accident Investigation Board
(AAIB) and Bell’s own experience with
combined recorders, to conclude that
this requirement is unnecessary and
would result in significant development
and certification costs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Bell also stated that the ‘‘no single
electrical failure could disable both the
CVR and DFDR’’ language was
ambiguous. Bell noted that it has been
interpreted in different ways, and that if
it is applied to either the failure of any
single electrical component within a
combined CVR/DFDR, or to a single
electrical failure external to the
recorder, it would make most available
recorders obsolete. Bell suggested that if
the applicability to all rotorcraft is
maintained, the language be changed to
indicate that the single electrical failure
at issue is external to the recorder.
Columbia Helicopters made a similar
argument, noting that for an allowed
combined recorder, the requirement is
confusing and contradictory, and
requested that the language be clarified.
The FAA acknowledges that the
separation of electrical power has not
been an issue on rotorcraft to date.
However, the potential problem being
addressed by the ‘‘no single electrical
failure’’ requirement remains in any
tiered electrical power system and may
affect all aircraft, fixed wing or
rotorcraft. We also agree that the
language of the proposed requirement
could be misinterpreted in a combined
recorder installation. Since the intent of
the regulation is to prevent electrical
failures of aircraft wiring or electrical
power external to the recorder from
disabling both recorder functions, we
have changed §§ 23.1457(d)(4),
25.1459(a)(7), 27.1457(d)(4) and
29.1459(a)(6) to reflect this
interpretation. However, we remain
unable to distinguish rotorcraft by the
number of passengers, and the rule is
adopted for all helicopters with the
modifications described here.
The NTSB and the AIA recommended
the no single electrical failure
requirement be expanded beyond newly
manufactured aircraft to include the
existing fleet. The NTSB noted that,
with this change, the final rule would
comply with the NTSB recommendation
on this subject. The NTSB also stated
that since most existing aircraft already
meet this requirement, any retrofit
requirement would have a minimal
economic impact. The AIA suggested
the FAA consider including the current
fleet after conducting a cost-benefit
analysis.
The FAA considered this option
while developing the NPRM and found
that a wiring retrofit represents a
significant economic burden, and could
require extensive aircraft rework in
order to rewire not only the recorder
systems, but other aircraft systems that
are affected by changes made for the
recorders. The commenters did not
provide any new data for either the

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

costs or benefits that would change our
conclusion. The final rule remains
applicable only to aircraft manufactured
two years after this final rule.
2. Single Electrical Failure vs. Most
Reliable Bus
In addition to the requirement that no
single electrical failure disable both
recorders discussed above, we proposed
that all newly manufactured aircraft
have a CVR and DFDR installed that
receives its electrical power from the
bus that provides the maximum
reliability of operation.
AirTran and Northwest Airlines
(Northwest) suggested the proposed
language for these two requirements is
contradictory. AirTran stated that, in
order to have the DFDR and CVR on
different sources to preclude a single
failure from disabling both units, one of
the units is likely to be on a less reliable
source than the other. Northwest asked
if requiring both the CVR and FDR to be
powered by the most reliable bus would
create an opportunity for a single point
electrical failure that disabled both
recorders, violating the single failure
proposal.
We disagree that the two requirements
are contradictory. Proper system design
will allow the CVR and the FDR to be
powered by different, but equally
reliable, buses. This will ensure that a
single point failure does not affect both.
We recognize that some sensors in the
DFDR system may be powered by buses
that are lower in the electrical hierarchy
than the recorders. While some
information may be lost if these lower
buses fail, the failure itself could
provide insight as to the sequence of
events occurring during an accident or
incident and does not create an issue
with the failure of power to the recorder
itself.
3. Most Reliable Bus—Other Comments
The ATA expressed concern that the
proposed language regarding power to
the recorders from the most reliable bus
(§§ 25.1457(d)(1) and 25.1459(a)(3)) is
vague, and proposed different language
for these sections. Northwest expressed
the concern that the last sentence in
each paragraph is redundant and
suggested the proposed language is
redundant with the existing paragraph.
We have reviewed the proposed
language and have concluded it
properly conveys the intent of the
requirements. The language suggested
by the ATA introduces terms that would
be open to numerous interpretations,
and suggests a requirement for recorder
power much more restrictive than our
intent.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

Regarding Northwest’s comment that
the second sentence in each paragraph
is redundant, we note that, while
similar, they address two separate
issues. The first sentence addresses the
source of the recorder’s power (i.e., the
bus). The second sentence addresses the
situation experienced during Swissair
flight 111, in which the flightcrew
disabled the electric bus that powered
both the CVR and the DFDR while
searching for a source of smoke in the
cockpit.
Smiths suggested that all CVRs on
newly manufactured aircraft provide
dual isolated power bus inputs to
provide the recorders with the most
reliable and available power and reduce
the possibility of a single electrical
failure disabling a recorder.
We reviewed Smiths’ proposal, but
the commenter did not provide any
information comparing its suggestion to
the proposed rule, any suggestion of the
extent to which it might be used, or the
cost of such a requirement. We
concluded that our proposal to require
the DFDR and the CVR to be powered
by separate buses is sufficient and is
performance-based.
I. Separate Containers
Boeing noted the proposal stated that
each separate container must meet the
‘‘crashworthiness requirements already
in the regulations.’’ Boeing assumed this
statement refers to §§ 25.1457(e) and
25.1459(b) and requested clarification.
The phrase ‘‘crashworthiness
requirements already in the regulations’’
refers to the existing requirements in
parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 for installing
recorders (both CVR and DFDR) that
meet the crashworthiness requirements
of TSO–C123a or TSO–C124a.
Columbia sought clarification on the
applicability of the proposed
requirements of §§ 27.1459 and 29.1459.
Columbia interpreted the proposal to
require all helicopters currently
equipped with combination recorders to
meet the entirety of the certification
sections cited four years after the
adoption of the final rule, which would
require a retrofit of several items,
including the 10 minute RIPS. Columbia
suggested this interpretation did not
reflect the intent of the FAA and
recommended rewording the rule to
remove any confusion.
We believe the commenter is
misreading the proposal. Columbia
referred to ‘‘proposed 135.152(1),’’ but
that is not a valid reference. Proposed
§ 135.152(l) (lower case ‘‘L’’) addresses
only the recorder containers, and means
that part 23 and 25 airplanes must
maintain the recorders in two separate
boxes, while part 27 and 29 rotorcraft

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

may have one combined unit. A
combined unit must meet all of the
requirements for both DFDRs and CVRs,
which are determined by aircraft age.
The other DFDR and CVR
requirements are mandated in
§ 135.152(m)(1), which applies to
aircraft manufactured two years after the
rule, and repeats the new container
reference; there is no retrofit
requirement for the other certification
sections referring to wiring if the
installation is not altered. On this topic,
the commenter may also have been
confused by the discussion in the
preamble of the proposed rule, which
indicates that if a rotorcraft operator
changes a current two-unit installation
to a single combined unit, the new
power and wiring requirements must be
met. Since a single combined unit is
optional, the rule does not impose the
new wiring requirements unless the
operator chooses to make the change,
and the operator must consider the cost
of the rewiring as part of its decision to
change to a single combined unit.
J. Dual Combination Recorders
When the NTSB recommended the
installation of two full recording
systems, it was included as part of a
much larger system recommendation.
The NTSB suggested that each aircraft
have a system that included two
combination recorders, one fore and one
aft, with a RIPS attached to the forward
combination recorder. The NTSB
recommended this as a retrofit.
We did not propose the installation of
two full sets of recording equipment,
referred to as ‘‘dual combination
recorders,’’ as recommended by the
NTSB because of the substantial costs
involved. We did propose that a RIPS be
installed for the CVRs on newly
manufactured airplanes.
Several commenters, including
Airbus, ALPA, Boeing, Embraer,
Honeywell, Smiths, and the NTSB, each
suggested some variation on our
allowing the use of combination
recorders. In a related issue, three
individual commenters recommended
placing the CVR and DFDR in separate
parts of the aircraft to increase the
chances of survival. The commenters
raised issues of cost, survivability,
separate location, and redundancy in
arguing for combination recorders.
Generally, if two combination
recorders are installed, one would be
designated as the DFDR and one as the
CVR in accordance with the separate
container requirement. As a follow-on to
this configuration, several commenters
requested that one combination recorder
be located at the front of the airplane to
act as the CVR.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12547

These suggestions bring up several
issues when one or more combination
recorders are installed, including nonfunctioning equipment for Minimum
Equipment List (MEL) relief, RIPS units,
and the regulations on recorder location
and separate containers.
Accordingly, the FAA is revising the
regulations to allow for the following in
the final rule:
(1) When a single combination
recorder is used in place of either a
DFDR or a CVR, it will only be allowed
to function as the chosen unit. The
combination recorder and the single
function recorder must maintain the
requirements for aft location and
separate boxes. No relief from any
regulation is granted by this
configuration. If one combination box is
used, it cannot be used as a CVR located
near the cockpit.
(2) When two combination recorders
are used, one may be located near the
cockpit. This recorder will function as
the CVR and, in newly manufactured
airplanes, may be co-located with the
RIPS. In the event of an equipment
failure subject to relief under an
operator’s MEL, no further relief is given
than for separate units.
The FAA does not consider the
voluntary installation of two
combination recorders to be the
redundant/dual system envisioned by
the NTSB recommendation. The use of
two combination recorders is not
mandated for any installation. Singlepurpose recorders are the regulatory
minimum, and when used, all of the
requirements including separate
containers, wiring, and aft location
remain the same.
K. Increased DFDR Recording Rates
1. Need for 16 Hertz (Hz) Requirement
The FAA proposed an increase in the
recording rate to 16 Hz for certain flight
control parameters on aircraft
manufactured two years after the final
rule. While acknowledging that
parameters recorded at 1 or 2 Hz are
inadequate, five commenters, Airbus,
AirTran, ATA, Boeing, and Embraer,
suggested that a 16 Hz recording rate is
excessive and could be very costly.
Airbus argued the proposed rate
would not only affect the DFDR and
associated interface units, but would
also require redesign of the aircraft’s
systems providing the parameter data.
Airbus stated the impact of such a
redesign is not covered in the
compliance cost estimates in the NPRM,
nor is the proposed 2-year time frame
realistic for a redesign of these systems.
Therefore, Airbus recommended
replacing the existing standard with a

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

12548

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sampling rate appropriate to a given
aircraft type and supplied rates for each
of its aircraft models. Airbus’s comment
does not include information on how
the FAA would decide which rate is
appropriate for any given aircraft, or
how such a standard could be
established or its estimated cost for each
model aircraft.
AirTran noted the proposed sampling
rate for each flight control unit (nine
total) would exceed the capacity of the
DFDR system installed in its fleet.
AirTran recommended a sampling rate
equal to the recording capacity of the
DFDR systems. For AirTran’s installed
DFDR systems, this capacity is roughly
8 Hz.
The ATA noted that some inproduction aircraft do not provide data
at the 16 Hz rate. These aircraft would
require an extensive and costly redesign
to keep component interchangeability.
Therefore, ATA proposed changing the
16 Hz recording rate to a recording rate
requirement that is ‘‘at a maximum rate
available from that aircraft system up to
16 Hz.’’
Boeing stated that 16 Hz is not
necessary if the goal is to make the
recorded control motions unambiguous.
Instead, a change to 16 Hz would result
in unnecessarily large data analysis files
and require significant added costs to
change the signal source. Boeing
recommended recording at 4 Hz.
Embraer suggested the 16 Hz
recording rate will require a substantial
amount of data memory capacity on
DFDRs that may not be available. This
would result in the removal of some
recorded parameters or installing new
DFDRs having more data memory.
Embraer proposed the FAA require a
recording rate of 8 Hz, or the maximum
sensor output frequency, whichever is
less.
The FAA appreciates the detailed
comments received on this subject. We
have reconsidered the proposal and
agree that a 16 Hz recording rate, while
desirable, is not practicable for most
installations. We remain convinced that
existing recording rates for certain
primary flight controls are lagging
behind available technology and that a
change is necessary. Therefore, in the
final rule, the new recording rate is 8 Hz
for specified parameters on aircraft
manufactured two years after this final
rule. This rate will sufficiently increase
the reliability of the data received and
will not require any modifications to the
systems that provide the parameter data
to the DFDR system. For some newly
manufactured airplanes, additional
recorder capacity may be required, but
the source equipment will remain as is
installed today.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Boeing recommended that the final
rule prohibit interleaving, since that
practice impacts the true sampling rate.
Interleaving is the practice of sampling
inputs and combining those samples to
comply with sampling rate
requirements. For example, if the left
elevator position is recorded two times
per second, and the right elevator two
times per second, the total of these two
measurements are combined to derive a
sampling rate of four times per second.
This practice was originally necessary to
meet the sampling rate requirements on
DFDR systems with smaller memory
capacity. This practice is undesirable
because, in reality, alternating the
inputs only provides data at the lower
rate for each interleaved position. In
some cases, such as for inboard and
outboard aileron surface positions, the
inboard surface is locked out under
certain flight conditions. When the
parameters from these surfaces are
interleaved, the result is no data for half
of the samples.
We agree with Boeing and have
changed the language of the final rule to
state that alternately sampling inputs to
meet the applicable sampling interval is
not permitted. The prohibition on
interleaving applies to those flight
control parameters subject to footnote
20 to part 121 Appendix M (and its
equivalent in other operating parts).
2. 16 Hz Requirement—Applicability
Four commenters (Bombardier,
Dassault, Embraer and Honeywell)
recommended that any requirement to
increase sampling rates apply only to
new aircraft type certification programs,
rather than newly manufactured aircraft.
Bombardier noted that a sampling
interval of 0.0625 seconds (16 Hz)
would require a major redesign of
existing equipment from the data source
through data concentrator units to the
FDR. None of the current equipment on
Bombardier’s products was designed to
process data at 16 Hz. Bombardier
contended the cost estimates in the
NPRM severely underestimated the
equipment redesign costs and the
subsequent test and certification costs.
These extensive changes would require
more than two years to develop and
certify.
Dassault stated the proposed 16 Hz
requirement could require a complete
electrical and mechanical modification,
and result in a recertification of the
entire DFDR installation. In addition,
Dassault noted that a 16 Hz sampling
rate is too high for flight controls and
adds no value.
Embraer stated that, on some of its
airplanes, neither the force sensors for
the flight controls nor the data

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

acquisition systems can support the
proposed sample rate of 16 Hz, and
would require new equipment. Embraer
recommended a lower sample rate (8
Hz), and proposed that a 16 Hz sample
rate apply to new aircraft type
certification programs only.
Honeywell noted that, for aircraft in
production, any increase in the
sampling rate of a control surface
position or a control input would
require a change to the systems that
provide source data to the DFDR system.
Honeywell also stated that a sampling
rate of 16 times per second, while
reasonable for some parameters, might
be burdensome or inefficient for others.
Honeywell suggested that a
performance-based standard for
recording would be superior to the one
proposed, with the actual rate to be
established as part of the certification
process.
We are adopting an 8 Hz requirement
in the final rule rather than the 16 Hz
proposed. Based on the comments, we
have determined that 8 Hz is the
maximum rate that can be achieved
without requiring modification of the
systems and equipment that provide
individual parameter data to the DFDR
system. The need for some increase in
the sampling rate has been addressed in
the NTSB recommendations, as well as
a study done by the FAA and NASA.
The study clearly shows that critical
control surface position data can be lost
at the lower sampling rates, and that it
is true for all aircraft. The final rule
requirement for an 8 Hz recording rate
will apply to all newly manufactured
aircraft.
3. 16 Hz Requirement—Other
Comments
The NTSB expressed disappointment
that the proposed increase in the
sampling rate does not address existing
aircraft, as called for in NTSB
Recommendation A–03–49.
As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA
was unable to justify the substantial
economic burden that would be
imposed on current operators to apply
this as a retrofit requirement. As
detailed by the commenters, it is
anticipated that it could be a significant
burden to incorporate into newly
manufactured aircraft, much less as a
retrofit to much older aircraft whose
recording systems and source
equipment are not equipped to record at
the higher proposed rate. While we
recognize the benefits of increasing the
sampling rates of flight control
parameters on existing aircraft, we are
unable to quantify that benefit or
balance it against the costs. The NTSB

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
has not provided us with data that
would change this conclusion.
An individual commented that the
proposed language ‘‘the sampling
interval per second is 16’’ for footnote
5 of Appendix E to part 91 is
ambiguous. The commenter
recommended changing this to ‘‘the
minimum sampling rate is 16 samples
per second’’ or ‘‘the maximum sampling
interval is .0625 second.’’
The proposed language is consistent
with industry practice and the footnotes
already in Appendix E to part 91 and
the other applicable flight recorder
appendices that have been in use for
years. No change was made based on
this comment.
L. 25-Hour Recorder
Eurocopter stated the proposed
increased duration for DFDR recording
in § 91.609(c)(3) (25 hours) should not
be applied to rotorcraft, based on its
experience that rotorcraft missions do
not exceed 10 hours.
Based on its experience in
investigating aircraft accidents and
incidents, the NTSB determined that an
FDR duration of 25 hours would address
many of the issues it has faced. The
FAA has chosen to make the 25-hour
DFDR recording retention standard for
all new aircraft. As the commenter
noted, increased recording time is a
matter of memory, and is not a technical
challenge. While we acknowledge
Eurocopter’s suggestion that regulations
for fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft
might have different goals, we believe
that the issue of recording time should
be maintained as a standard regardless
of aircraft type. We have no data to
suggest that recording time needs be
specific to aircraft type or operation,
and believe that standardization makes
the regulations less complicated and
less expensive by using the same
available equipment.
M. Datalink Communication (DLC)

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

1. International Compatibility
Three commenters, Airbus, Boeing
and an individual, noted that the Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA) is also
preparing a regulation on DLC recording
and requested that the FAA ensure the
U.S. regulations are harmonized with
the JAA’s. They expressed concern that
as proposed, the regulations are
incompatible.
The FAA believes the proposed DLC
recording regulation is compatible with
the DLC regulations proposed by the
JAA. The proposed rule is designed to
be performance-based, with the message
set to be recorded and approved at the
time of aircraft certification. Since we

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

do not define the message set, we do not
foresee an instance in which a DLC
system certificated under the
regulations proposed by the JAA would
not be in compliance with our
requirement as proposed.
In response to the JAA’s Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA), the FAA
has sent several comments concerning
general and specific provisions of the
proposal. We acknowledge that the two
proposals are not harmonized, and we
believe the scope of the current NPA
would result in significant costs on
some operators without a resulting
safety benefit. We have asked that
several technical issues be clarified,
including parts of ED–112 and whether
the regulation would apply to aircraft
with ACARS only. We will continue
working with the JAA (and the
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) when it assumes responsibility
for this issue from the JAA) to make the
regulations more compatible but will
not delay the issuance of this rule since
our rule is more performance-based and
less dependent on the resolution of
individual technical issues.
The International Air Transport
Association (IATA) stated that before
the United States proposes a DLC
recording requirement, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
should take the lead to substantiate the
datalink recording requirements and
provide clear guidance on the data that
needs to be recorded (including its
relevance to accident investigation). The
IATA stated that industry cannot
address the desired architecture for all
aircraft types until these two issues are
resolved.
Since no specific message set is
required, we consider our regulation to
be adaptable to ICAO or the JAA’s
proposed requirements at the time an
aircraft is certificated. We do not believe
it is in anyone’s interest to wait for
another international standard to be
settled before recording is required, and
we built the described flexibility into
our standard.
2. Definitions of DLCs and Approved
Message Sets
Thirteen commenters addressed the
issue of what DLCs should be recorded
and what would constitute an approved
message set. These commenters
criticized the proposed requirement to
record ‘‘all datalink communications’’
as open to interpretation, ambiguous
and poorly defined. These commenters
sought clarification and requested that
clear guidance material be available
when the final rule is published. A
sampling of the comments on DLC
message sets includes suggestions to:

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12549

• Record ‘‘flight deck datalink
communications’’ rather than ‘‘all’’ to
eliminate the recording of navigation,
surveillance and maintenance, and
cabin and passenger communications.
• Not require the recording of flight
deck crew interaction, including cabin
terminal messages, maintenance
computer messages, engine condition
monitoring messages, or atmosphere/
wind reports.
• Limit recording to communications
between aircraft and air traffic control
via the air traffic network.
• Record all DLCs sent and received
regardless of their content or format, or
whether they are ‘‘approved message
sets;’’ this would be the least restrictive
to implement and provide the most
information to investigators.
• Place the definition of ‘‘approved
data message set’’ in part 121 (and parts
91, 125 and 135 as appropriate), similar
to the current FDR parameters.
• Make the definition of approved
message sets flexible to respond to
changes in technology, such as higher
bandwidth.
The types of messages and the content
of those messages that will be recorded
will be determined during certification
of the DLC system. The rule language is
performance-based, with the intent that
system design would be driven by
customer needs and regulatory
compliance. The ‘‘approved message
set’’ will be comprised of the messages
provided by the system being installed,
and will be determined by certification
personnel. Concurrent with the
publication of this rule, we are
publishing a Notice of Availability of
Advisory Circular, AC 20–160. The AC
identifies Controller-Pilot Datalink
Communications (CPDLC) as one set of
messages that are anticipated to be
included in the required message set.
An example of a CPDLC message set can
also be found in ICAO Document 4444
‘‘Air Traffic Management Procedures for
Air Navigation Services’’, Appendix 5.
However, we anticipate that as new
datalink systems and capabilities are
developed, the message sets of that
equipment will evolve and will need to
be evaluated to determine which parts
need to be recorded to comply with the
regulations. A rule that requires
approval at certification anticipates this
evolution without creating regulatory
lists that cannot be changed as quickly
as the technology develops and thus
hinders system evolution and
improvements.
3. Compliance Time
The NTSB objected to the proposed
requirement to record DLCs two years
after datalink equipment is installed.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12550

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

The NTSB failed to see the reason for
the delay when the installed
communications equipment should
have the capability of outputting the
required datalink messages to the voice
recorder at the time of installation.
The NTSB’s interpretation of the
proposed requirement is incorrect. The
requirement is to record DLCs on any
aircraft on which DLC equipment is
voluntarily installed beginning two
years from the effective date of the final
rule. For the first two years after the
effective date of the final rule, DLC
equipment can be installed on aircraft
regardless of whether the messages can
be recorded. However, beginning two
years from the date of the final rule,
DLC messages must be recorded as of
the date of equipment installation or
certification, whether the equipment is
installed as a retrofit or at new
certification.
Northwest requested that, for newly
manufactured aircraft, the compliance
date be extended to the 2010–2012
timeframe rather than two years after
the final rule. Northwest stated that
more time is needed to approve the
different message sets that will be used
by air carriers and to create the required
ground infrastructure.
While developing the NPRM, the FAA
considered the factors listed by
Northwest, but determined that two
years from the effective date of the final
rule is sufficient for airframe and
recorder manufacturers to develop
compliant systems for the DLC
recording requirement, especially since
installation remains optional. No other
comments were received indicating this
time period is insufficient. We also note
that the topic has been under
consideration internationally for years.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

4. Existing DLC Capability
Japan Air Lines (JAL) requested
clarification on the applicability to
airplanes equipped with DLC
equipment before the 2-year date, in
order to properly estimate the
anticipated financial impacts and effects
on production and maintenance.
Similarly, AirTran requested the final
rule specify that aircraft that are DLCequipment capable, but have never had
it fully installed, are not subject to the
recording requirements. AirTran also
requested that the recording
requirement not apply to airplanes on
which DLC is installed ‘‘post delivery’’
or it will deter installation of DLC
equipment.
Boeing stated the regulation should
require datalink recording only if DLCs
are used operationally, rather than if
DLC equipment is installed, noting that

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

many aircraft have the equipment, but it
is not enabled or used.
The requirement for recording DLC is
determined when the DLC system is
installed and certified. If the system is
installed and certified before April 7,
2010, there is no requirement for those
systems to record messages. If the DLC
system is installed and certified (at
manufacture or by retrofit) after April 7,
2010, the DLC system must be examined
to determine whether its message set
installed at the time must be recorded.
The messages that must be recorded
become the approved message set for
that installation. If a provisional
(inactive) system is installed and
certificated before April 7, 2010, and
requires no further certification when
the system is activated, then there is no
recording requirement for that system
even if the activation occurs after two
years. However, a change in such a
system (especially a change to the
message set being used) may trigger the
requirement to record as though the
whole system were a new installation
under the regulation.
5. Datalink Recording Requirement
Applicability
Several commenters (ATA, AirTran,
Airbus, Boeing and RAA) suggested that
the applicability of the datalink
recording requirement be changed or
that the requirement be completely
withdrawn. The ATA proposed that onboard recording of datalink
communications ‘‘only apply to new
(datalink system) installations on
aircraft in production.’’ Airbus
concurred with the requirement for
newly manufactured aircraft, but
requested that the requirement for
recording messages from newly
installed systems on existing aircraft be
delayed until 2010. The RAA requested
that ‘‘the proposal to retrofit airplanes
for recording datalink messages also be
withdrawn.’’ Boeing commented that
‘‘[T]he appropriate point to introduce
onboard recording is at a new airplane
type certification program or, for
existing production models, at a major
upgrade to the next generation of
datalink communications, such as
FANS 2 or equivalent.’’ The
commenters provided the following
reasons in support of withdrawing the
requirement or changing the proposed
recording applicability:
• High costs of incorporation would
delay and/or prevent the installation
and use of DLCs, diminishing the safety
benefits associated with datalink
operations, and the benefits of reduced
separation and increased traffic.
• Incorporation during a new type
certification program lessens the

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

economic impact by allowing it to be
introduced during the aircraft design
process.
• Most DLC applications are related
to air traffic control, are still evolving,
and are not yet sufficient to replace the
aircraft/controller voice communication
entirely or to supplement voice
communication as planned.
• Current DLC systems cannot
support recording functions without
significant upgrades or replacement
with newer systems. The aircraft
modifications required would
significantly exceed the expenses for
changing the CVR and wiring only.
The FAA recognizes these concerns,
but we continue to believe that the two
year applicability in the rule provides
the best balance of compliance time and
technological development. If an
operator cannot justify the expense of a
recording system for a new DLC
installation, then it is because the
benefits of having the system will be
outweighed. This is why we tied the
requirement to the voluntary
installation of DLC systems. The
recording requirement remains the same
as proposed—that new installations (at
certification or on retrofit) of datalink
accomplished two years after the
compliance date must be recorded.
6. Technical Issues
An individual commenter questioned
the amount of memory needed to meet
the two-hour DLC recording
requirement. This commenter noted the
amount of data that could theoretically
be received in two hours will increase
as developments in DLCs are deployed.
Therefore, an agreed methodology (for
formatting and storing messages in
memory) will be needed to support
certification.
Smiths concurred with the proposed
rule, and noted the capacity of DLCs to
be recorded is dependent on the aircraft
system design (such as an ARINC 429
databus or AFDX network). Smiths
expressed concern that too many
messages to be recorded could exceed
the capacity of the allocated 2-hour
recording partition.
To meet current recorder
requirements, recorder manufacturers
have developed procedures to calculate
the necessary memory requirements
depending on system design and
installation. Therefore, the FAA has no
reason to believe these manufacturers
will be unable to determine the amount
of memory needed to meet the two-hour
DLC recording requirement.
The NTSB noted that adding a
properly placed cockpit video camera
would allow DLCs displayed to the crew
to be recorded on the video image

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

recorder. Since the use of video
technology would not require any
modifications to an aircraft’s
communication or display systems, the
NTSB stated that this approach to
recording DLCs might greatly reduce the
time and expense of retrofitting older
aircraft.
Our NPRM did not propose the
installation of cockpit video cameras
and our regulatory evaluation did not
include their use in cost estimates or
benefits analysis, nor has the use of
cockpit video been proposed for public
or industry comment. The issue of
cockpit video is unsettled and would
dramatically delay the implementation
of DLC recording standards that are
already being developed internationally.
The FAA is not adverse to certification
of an image recorder system that meets
the operational requirements of this
rule, but no image recording system will
be mandated to comply with DLC
recording requirements.
7. TSO for DLC
Bombardier recommended that a TSO
for CVRs with datalink recording
capability be prepared and released for
comment with any proposed operating
rule mandating the use of TSO approved
equipment where DLC recording is
required.
The FAA has issued TSO-C176 which
identifies the minimum performance
standards for a Crash Protected Datalink
Recorder. The TSO is based on
EUROCAE minimum performance
standards document ED–112. Our TSO
allows the certification of a stand-alone
recorder or a recorder that combines this
function with other recorder functions
(DFDR, CVR).
The ALPA disagreed with the
proposal to record two hours of DLCs
and recommends they be recorded for
the entire duration of flight. The ALPA
stated that the importance of DLCs to an
investigation makes it imperative that
these communications be captured for
the entire duration of flight. The
commenter believed this would most
easily be accomplished by recording
these communications on the FDR.
Since the duration of any particular
flight is variable, the FAA has
established a minimum DLC recording
duration of at least two hours to match
the requirement for the CVR. Ground
stations also record CPDLC messages, so
any messages that occur outside of the
2-hour minimum could be retrieved
from a ground source.
N. Recordation of Cockpit
Communication or Audio Signals
The NPRM proposed that the
expansion of the recordation of cockpit

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

audio signals be the same for all part 23
and part 25 aircraft regardless of
operating part. No comments were
received on this portion of the NPRM,
and the proposal is adopted without
change.
O. Checklist-to-Checklist Requirement
The FAA proposed language to
standardize across all operating parts
when CVRs must be in operation. This
is known as the ‘‘checklist to checklist’’
requirement.
Five commenters, ATA, Boeing,
Dassault, Northwest, and one
individual, said the proposed language
was confusing. The ATA and one
individual commenter noted the
proposed wording could require
changes to existing CVRs from ones that
operate once electrical power is applied
to the respective power supply bus, to
ones that can be switched ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’
by the flight crew when the checklist is
used.
Northwest stated that while most of
its aircraft appear to meet the intent of
this language, the proposed language
could require an automatic shutoff of
the CVR on completion of the final
checklist. Since some CVR systems stop
the CVR five minutes after final engine
shutdown, this situation would require
a costly retrofit. Northwest added that
any such requirement should not be
effective at the adoption of the final
rule, since changes may take longer to
implement.
Boeing proposed changing the
language to clarify that the goal is a
minimum recording time as described.
Boeing also suggests a longer
compliance time. It inferred the intent
of the proposal is to record cockpit
voice communications as soon as
possible before the flight and as long as
possible after the flight.
The FAA reviewed the proposed
language and agrees with the
commenters that a change in the current
language could cause undue confusion.
It was never our intent to change the
current operation of CVRs. In preparing
the NPRM, we found the existing
regulations on CVR start/stop criteria
lacked consistency between operating
parts. We were trying to address this
issue by proposing a single standard
that specified the minimum time period
for CVR operation (checklist-tochecklist). CVR operation was not
intended to be limited to this minimum
time period, and existing CVR systems
would not need to be modified to run
only during this minimum time period
if their current operation had them
starting sooner or ending later than the
proposed criteria.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12551

We also discovered that providing
consistent language throughout the
operating parts could be more
complicated and confusing than
warranted by the minor inconsistencies
that now exist. Questions of compliance
time, applicability to aircraft of certain
age, and the differences in the
construction of the operating parts have
caused us to decide not to adopt the
proposed language. Since we never
intended to change how CVRs operate,
the decision to leave the current
language in the rules is not expected to
have any negative effects. Where new
applicability paragraphs are being
adopted, they will use the same
checklist language as had been used
previously in that part.
We received a considerable number of
comments regarding specific operation
of CVRs under the proposed checklist to
checklist requirement. Since we have
decided not to include the proposed
change in the final rule, we are not
including any discussion of those
comments.
P. Deployable Recorders—Request for
Comments
In the NPRM, the FAA sought
comments and information about the
feasibility of and specifications for a
deployable flight recorder system. We
received 12 comments in response to
this request. Eight commenters (ALPA,
DRS Technologies (DRS), Hall and
Associates, LLC (Hall), National Air
Disaster Alliance/Foundation (NADA/
F), Representatives John J. Duncan, Jr.
and William J. Pascrell, Jr. in a joint
submission, and Representatives Harold
Rogers and David Price in a joint
submission) supported the use of
deployable recorder systems. These
commenters cited a number of reasons
for supporting deployable flight
recorders, including:
• Since fixed and deployable
recorders have different survivability
characteristics, the use of both types
would provide maximum redundancy
and improve the odds of recovering
complete, undamaged recorders for data
analysis.
• Deployable system technology
could dramatically reduce the time and
cost to locate and recover recorders.
• The expansion of aviation practices
such as the production of larger aircraft,
increasing numbers of flights, increased
polar and over water flights, and the
onset of free flight, present new
demands on investigators and
compound the need for immediate
access to better information.
• The time savings associated with
recovery would have a dramatic affect
on the U.S. economy. Since September

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

12552

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

11, 2001, an airline crash without a
known cause is more likely to cause the
traveling public to lose faith in the air
transportation system, costing the U.S.
economy billions of dollars.
• Current recorder standards no
longer meet safety and security needs,
where heightened security threats
demand that officials have complete
information as quickly as possible to
determine the cause of a crash.
Five commenters (Boeing, IATA,
Northwest and two individuals) did not
support the use of deployable recorder
systems for several reasons, including:
• Since existing recording systems
provide enough data and are protected
from all but the most extreme crash
conditions, it is doubtful that a
deployable flight recorder would
significantly increase data survivability.
• The survivability and recoverability
of the current fixed recorders is
acceptable and the costs of
implementing deployable recorder
systems are not balanced by sufficient
benefits.
• Deployable recorder systems may
present a safety hazard if the event of an
inadvertent deployment over populated
areas or active runways, or if manual
deployment distracts a flightcrew from
its primary tasks during an emergency.
• The safety hazards to maintenance
personnel or the public from a misfire
are considerable.
Smiths expressed neither objection to
nor support for deployable recorder
systems, but said that, because of
uncertain dynamics, deployable systems
should be qualified to the identical
survivability requirements as fixed
recorders.
The FAA appreciates all the
information provided in response to our
request for comments. This information
is helpful and will aid us in
understanding the technology involved,
possible future applications for
deployable recorder systems, and the
consequences of their design and
installation.
Despite several requests, this final
rule does not include a requirement for
deployable recorder systems. The
request for comments in the NPRM was
made to bring the issue to the public’s
attention. We would need significant
amounts of information concerning
design and cost before we could begin
to properly assess such an addition. We
will not delay the CVR and DFDR
improvements promulgated in this final
rule while we continue our analysis of
new technology. Deployable recorder
systems may be addressed in a future
rulemaking action.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Q. Miscellaneous Comments
1. Applicability
Four commenters (Boeing, Radiant
and two individuals) suggested changes
to the general applicability of the
proposed rule. Boeing stated that all
aircraft operating in the U.S. should be
subject to the proposed requirements.
Boeing noted that accidents and
incidents involving non-U.S.-registered
aircraft (such as EgyptAir 990) have
been the subject of FAA and NTSB
investigations, and stated that the
additional data gained from
investigations involving these aircraft
would be just as useful as in data gained
during investigations of U.S.-registered
aircraft.
Two individual commenters
suggested that we expand the
applicability of the proposed rules. One
recommended the rule apply to all
carriers, while another suggested the
rule should apply to all operators and
manufacturers.
In contrast, Radiant asked us to
restrict the final rule to aircraft with a
‘‘reasonable service life remaining’’ or a
‘‘foreseeable future in commercial
aviation.’’ Radiant proposed limiting the
final rule to those aircraft models being
manufactured as of December 31, 2005.
Radiant stated this change would result
in a modern CVR and independent
power supply being installed in most of
the world fleet of active commercial
aircraft.
Like all countries, the FAA has
limited authority to require the
installation of particular equipment on
aircraft not on our registry but merely
flying in our airspace.
Similarly, while the NTSB plays a
primary role in investigating accidents
involving U.S.-registered aircraft, its
role in investigations involving other
countries’ aircraft is usually by
invitation. The accident investigation
authority from the country in which the
aircraft is registered usually leads these
investigations and may ask the NTSB to
participate. Other regulatory authorities
are free to increase the CVR/DFDR
regulations for aircraft of their registry if
they desire.
Further, this final rule changes the
regulations in both certification parts
(23, 25, 27, and 29) and operating parts
(91, 121, 125, 129, and 135), affecting
anyone who is regulated by those parts.
While some operators were excluded
from certain retrofit requirements
adopted here, that was done following
considerable analysis that showed a
significant economic burden would be
imposed. Our analysis demonstrates
that the scope of the final rule is
sufficient to meet the safety goal of more

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

reliable flight information at an
acceptable cost.
Finally, Radiant did not provide any
criteria for determining what a
‘‘reasonable service life remaining’’
would be, nor its proposed ‘‘foreseeable
future in commercial aviation.’’ As
such, we have no response. Radiant’s
proposed cutoff date (‘‘airplanes that are
still being produced as of December 31,
2005’’) would exclude several popular
aircraft models from the final rule,
including the Boeing 757 and 737
‘‘Classic,’’ and all McDonnell Douglas
airplanes. These airplanes are expected
to remain in the U.S. fleet in large
numbers for many years. Radiant’s
proposed date would also exclude seven
of the eight aircraft models involved in
the incidents/accidents cited in the
NTSB recommendations that are the
basis for this rulemaking. No changes to
the final rule were made based on these
comments.
2. Harmonization
Five commenters (AIA, Airbus,
Boeing, Bombardier and one individual)
expressed concern that the proposal in
the NPRM is not harmonized with
parallel activities currently being
considered by the JAA. These
commenters consider it vital that these
regulations are harmonized or the
affected industry could face conflicting
requirements, significant compliance
costs and potentially complex system
designs in an attempt to satisfy two
different sets of regulations. The
commenters suggest that a common set
of technical requirements be
implemented within a similar time
frame. Since both the FAA and the JAA
are proposing flight recorder changes,
the commenters urged the FAA to use
this opportunity to harmonize the
requirements before promulgating a
final rule.
The FAA continues to work with JAA
(and we will work with the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) when it
takes over responsibility for this issue
from the JAA), ICAO and other non-U.S.
regulatory bodies to harmonize our
regulations whenever possible, but we
do not change our position or our
regulations solely for the sake of
harmonization. When we determine that
the need exists for a certain regulation,
and the other regulatory agencies find
that a more stringent or lenient
requirement is appropriate, we review
their findings and will revise our
regulation if our regulatory goals are
met, an equivalent level of safety is
achieved, and there is no burden
imposed on the industry if a change is
made. This is the approach we have
taken when drafting the NPRM and this

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
final rule, but we will not delay the
timing of our rulemaking simply to
accommodate the continuing
consideration of issues by numerous
other regulatory bodies.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

3. Definition of ‘‘Date of Manufacture’’
Dassault noted the ‘‘date of
manufacture’’ determines the
applicability of certain requirements
and the NPRM does not define this
term. This omission could lead to
different interpretations and
disagreements between operators,
manufacturers and the FAA. Therefore,
Dassault recommended the FAA define
this term in the final rule.
While we use the term ‘date of
manufacture’ in several regulations, we
do not routinely define it each time. In
general, the date of manufacture is
usually considered the date an aircraft
receives its airworthiness certificate.
There may be other circumstances that
modify this date, however, and we will
not attempt to set a strict definition for
purposes of this rule.
4. CVRs—Automatic Stop Requirement
The NTSB and Airbus recommended
removal of the existing requirement that
CVRs have an automatic means of
stopping 10 minutes after crash impact.
They both noted the proposal to replace
the 30-minute CVR with a 2-hour CVR
makes this requirement less important.
While it may seem appropriate to
remove a rule that was originally
written for short-duration recorders,
removal of a certification rule has a
broader impact than suggested by the
commenters. Because the 2-hour
recorder requirement is an operating
rule, the effect of removing a
certification requirement is not parallel.
And although the 10-minute rule may
be considered less important, it is not
without merit and cannot be considered
unnecessary.
The commenters did not make a case
that the current certification
requirement is burdensome, or that it is
a hindrance or inconsistent with the
proposed new operating requirements,
only that it is less important than it once
was. The NTSB comment indicates that
its real concern is the use of switches
that can be activated prematurely as a
means of implementing the stop criteria.
While the NTSB suggested that
gravitation accelerator switches (gswitches) can be removed at the time of
replacement with a 2-hour solid state
recorder, their suggestion does not
include the actual g-switch ban they
desire, the regulation in which that
change might be implemented, or the
costs to implement it. The two largest
aircraft manufacturers are already

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

producing airplanes with 2-hour solid
state recorders, which means the aircraft
already comply with the rule. Removing
the g-switches would be a new retrofit
on which we have not solicited
comment, including alternative
technologies for complying with the
certification rule, and for which we
have no cost estimates. The comments
are insufficient to support the need for,
and do not properly estimate the scope
of, the recommended change. No change
has been made to the regulations based
on this comment.
5. FDRs—Start/Stop Criteria
The ALPA recommended changing
the DFDR start/stop criteria to mirror
the proposed CVR criteria for newly
manufactured and new certificated
designs. It noted that at least one
manufacturer has DFDR start/stop
criteria based on the status of the
parking brake, which can adversely
affect the ability to obtain complete,
accurate or relevant DFDR data.
The NTSB proposed different DFDR
start/stop criteria. The NTSB stated that
the FDR should start operating either
before engine start for the purpose of
flight or by an automatic means when
engine oil pressure is sensed on any
engine. The DFDR should then operate
continuously until termination of the
flight when all engines are shut down.
The NTSB also requested a change to
the airworthiness requirements in the
regulations. This change would provide
for the automatic application of
electrical power to the DFDR at liftoff to
safeguard against the failure of any
automatic or manual means of powering
the DFDR.
The FAA is not including the changes
to DFDR start/stop criteria. There is no
historical evidence that the start/stop
functions on aircraft have interfered
with accident investigations. The only
aircraft cited by ALPA are no longer in
production, so requirements for newly
manufactured airplanes would have no
effect. We believe the existing
regulations on DFDR start/stop criteria
are satisfactory. These regulations
require the DFDR to operate from the
instant the airplane begins its takeoff
roll until it has completed its landing
roll. We believe this standard allows the
DFDR to capture all the critical data
from the recorded parameters during all
phases of flight.
In addition, neither ALPA nor the
NTSB indicated how their proposed
changes would significantly improve
the quality or quantity of information
recorded, or increase the potential for
retaining important information needed
during accident and incident
investigations. As the NTSB pointed

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12553

out, most airframe manufacturers and
operators already begin DFDR operation
at engine start. Therefore, the proposed
changes would have no effect on these
aircraft. As for the Canada Air
Challenger CL–600 accident cited by the
NTSB, this is not an example of a
drawback of the existing DFDR start/
stop criteria. The manufacturer’s design
to start DFDR operation once the anticollision (strobe) light switch is placed
in the ‘‘on’’ position allows operators to
meet the existing DFDR start/stop
criteria (as long as the switch is ‘‘on’’
before takeoff roll begins). The fact that
the pilots of the CL–600 involved in the
accident failed to take this step implies
an operational error and not a design
problem with the airplane.
Finally, changing the FDR start/stop
criteria was not proposed in the NPRM.
We did not perform a regulatory
evaluation of the impact of this change,
and no costs for implementation were
provided by either commenter
suggesting it. Since we are unable to
support the change as necessary, we are
not incorporating it in this final rule.
6. DFDR Activation Switch—Request for
Comments
In the NPRM, the FAA requested
comments on the cost to retrofit a
switch for the flight crew to activate the
DFDR to record at the start of the
checklist. We received only one
comment in response to this request.
Boeing asked if there was a typo in the
request (CVR rather than DFDR), as this
subject matter is not discussed
elsewhere in the NPRM.
The request for comments on this
subject was an error in the NPRM. We
believe the existing regulations on
DFDR start/stop criteria are satisfactory.
R. Errors and Inconsistencies in NPRM
Dassault noted the sampling interval
of parameter 23 in Appendix F to part
135 would change from 0.5 (= 2 Hz) to
0.25 (= 4 Hz). However, the sampling
interval for the same parameter in
Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix
E to part 125 remains unchanged (0.5
(= 2 Hz)). Dassault recommended no
change to parameter 23 in Appendix F
to part 135 so it is consistent with
Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix
E to part 125.
The proposed changes to parameter
23 in Appendix F were in error. No
change is being made to that parameter.
Airbus and Boeing noted that
proposed § 129.1(b) removes the
requirement that §§ 129.16, 129.32, and
129.33 apply to operations of U.S.registered aircraft solely outside the U.S.
Those sections refer to damage-tolerance
inspections, repair assessments and

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

12554

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

aging airplane requirements. Airbus and
Boeing assumed this omission was
inadvertent and recommended the FAA
change § 129.1(b) to reinsert these
requirements.
The FAA thanks the commenters for
bringing this to our attention. The
proposed rule intended only to add new
§ 129.22 (now § 129.24) to the
applicability of § 129.1(b), not to
eliminate any existing requirements.
This has been corrected in the final rule.
Airbus and Boeing noted errors in
part 121 Appendix M, part 125
Appendix E and part 135 Appendix F
for the resolution of parameters 12a,
14a, 15 and 88. They stated that they
believe the existing resolutions for these
parameters are correct and were not
meant to be changed.
The FAA agrees. The final rule
reflects the resolutions for those four
parameters without change.
Boeing stated the new wording in the
‘‘Remarks’’ column for parameter 1 in
part 121 Appendix M is unclear. Boeing
noted its preference for the existing
language and proposed the FAA keep it.
The published version of the NPRM
introduced an error; the ‘‘Remarks’’
column was not intended to be changed
except to correct the word ‘‘second’’ to
‘‘seconds.’’
Boeing recommended the FAA make
several editorial changes to part 121,
Appendix M as clarifications:
(i) In the ‘‘Parameters’’ column for
Parameter 23, insert the word ‘‘speed’’
before ‘‘brake.’’
(ii) In the ‘‘Parameters’’ column for
Parameter 19, change the word ‘‘trime’’
to ‘‘trim.’’
(iii) In the ‘‘Resolution’’ column for
Parameter 26, revise the existing
wording ‘‘1 ft + 5% above 500 ft’’ to
read ‘‘1 ft up to and including 500 ft, 1
ft + 5% of full range above 500 ft.’’
The Parameter 23 listing is corrected
in the final rule. Since the Parameter 19
listing is correct in the 2006 Code of
Federal Regulations, no further action is
necessary. Regarding the Parameter 26
listing, Boeing presented nothing to
indicate that the current text is a
problem or has led to misunderstanding,
and has given no reason other than its
preference why this should be revised.
No change has been made in the final
rule.
Boeing also stated that the ‘‘Remarks’’
column for Parameter 85 should be
corrected, from ‘‘0.5 second’’ to ‘‘2
seconds’’ because, when sampled
alternately at 4-second intervals as
indicated in the table, the result will
provide a sample each two seconds.
The commenter is misreading the
rule; the specification is correct as
published. The suggested rewording

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

would double the sample time. Two
seconds refers to four interleaved
samples of 0.5 seconds each.
Honeywell had two comments about
the language in § 91.609. First,
Honeywell noted the proposed addition
of paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) and asked
why there is no paragraph (h). Second,
Honeywell asked why the phrase
‘‘* * * using a recorder that meets the
standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision’’ is missing in § 91.609(c)(2)
when it is in § 91.609(c)(3) and other
proposed similar revisions.
In 1999, the FAA issued Notice No.
99–19 (64 FR 63140, November 18,
1999), which proposed to increase the
number of DFDR parameters required
for all Boeing 737 series airplanes. A
new paragraph (h) for § 91.609 was part
of that proposal. When this rule was
proposed, the next available paragraph
was (i). Since this final rule will publish
before the 1999 proposal, the paragraphs
added to § 91.609 in this rule will be (h),
(i) and (j).
Honeywell is incorrect about
including TSO–C124a in § 91.609(c)(2).
Inclusion of the standard would be a
retrofit we did not intend nor estimate
the costs for. The TSO–C124a standard
is for newly manufactured aircraft only.
S. Items Not Proposed
Four commenters (ALPA, the NTSB
and two individuals) recommended the
FAA add new CVR and DFDR
requirements as part of this final rule.
The ALPA requested that we require
all newly manufactured CVRs and
DFDRs to meet the underwater locator
beacon (ULB) security-of-attachment
standard specified in the EUROCAE
ED–112 document. The ALPA noted
that in some recent accidents there have
been cases where the ULB has become
nearly or fully separated from the CVR
or FDR memory module.
The ULB standard of ED–112 standard
is included in all of the new FAA TSOs
on recorders (numbers 123b, 124b, 166
and 167).
Three commenters (NTSB, ALPA and
L3) recommended that the FAA require
the replacement of magnetic tape flight
recorders in the final rule. The
commenters noted that magnetic tape
FDRs are more problematic than
magnetic tape CVRs and far less reliable
than solid-state DFDRs.
The replacement of magnetic tape
flight recorders was not proposed in the
NPRM and represents a significant
change that is beyond the scope of the
rulemaking. The commenters did not
provide any data on the extent of usage
or the cost of replacement, nor has the
public (including affected operators)
been allowed to comment. The final rule

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

does not contain a provision requiring
the replacement of magnetic tape FDRs.
The ALPA expressed concern the
FAA did not propose any new
requirements in response to NTSB
Safety Recommendation A–03–050 that
was issued following the Board’s
investigation of the American Airlines
flight 587 accident that occurred at
Jamaica Bay, New York on November
12, 2001. During the investigation, the
NTSB determined that the rudder (and
other) control surface position
information recorded on the DFDR was
filtered before it was recorded. This
filtering made it difficult for the NTSB
to approximate the actual rudder surface
movement during the accident. The
NTSB recommended that the FAA act to
remove known flight control parameter
filtering on three models of aircraft. In
its comment, ALPA urged the FAA, as
part of this rulemaking, to consider
additional DFDR modifications in
response to the NTSB recommendation.
On July 7, 2004, the FAA hosted a
public meeting to discuss the NTSB
recommendation and the issue of
filtered flight data in general. The
purpose of this meeting was to gather
information from industry and other
interested parties about current
practices on processing of data as it is
recorded on all transport airplanes.
Representatives from Airbus, ALPA, the
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Boeing
and the NTSB each made presentations
at the meeting.
We completed our analysis of issues
surrounding filtered flight data and the
options available to us to address the
NTSB’s recommendation. On November
15, 2006, we published a proposed rule
that addresses filtered flight data (71 FR
66634) and this subject is being
addressed as a separate regulatory issue.
Six commenters supported the use of
a ground recording system. Five of these
commenters (APA, AirTran, RAA and
two individuals) raised this issue as part
of their objection to the datalink
communication (DLC) proposal. These
commenters noted that ground
recording is a more cost efficient means
of capturing DLCs since the same data
that will be recorded on the aircraft is
available for accident investigation at
the receiving ground based stations.
These commenters see no merit in
requiring DLC recording on aircraft.
The remaining individual commenter
suggested a ground recording system as
an alternative to recording any data on
an aircraft as this would eliminate the
loss of data during a crash.
The FAA agrees that ground recording
systems are a useful tool to assist in
accident investigations. However, these
systems cannot be adopted as the

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
primary source of data recording. In the
past, the NTSB and other accident
investigators have encountered
significant problems in acquiring
ground recorded data. Liability and
other legal concerns have caused some
private entities that perform ground
recording and some foreign
governments to delay the release of
recorded data for long periods. The
NTSB and other accident investigators
have repeatedly expressed their desire
that recorded data remain on the aircraft
because of the immediate availability of
the data once the recorders are located.
Further, for ground recording systems
to function as intended, all countries or
private entities recording data would
need compatible systems, the
specifications for which have not been
proposed. There are no international
standards in place for such recording,
and we have no way of ensuring that it
would happen.
The ALPA suggested we require a
system that provides an electronic
common time reference information to
the CVR, the DFDR, and any other
onboard recorders. They noted that, as
part of every accident investigation, the
relative timing of the CVR and DFDR
events must be determined, and that it
is a manual, labor-intensive effort by
accident investigators that could
introduce uncertainty into the results. A
system to provide electronic common
time reference information to the CVR
and DFDR would eliminate these
problems.
The NTSB viewed installing the new
2-hour CVR as an ideal opportunity to
require all aircraft equipped with a CVR
to also have pilot boom microphones.
An individual asked us to consider
accelerometer outputs and wheel
rotation as required parameters. The
commenter noted that current
accelerometer outputs are extremely
noisy, making it difficult to extract
usable data. The commenter suggested
that recording wheel rotation is an
excellent way of determining initial
touchdown.
For the balance of the issues, none of
these were included in the NPRM and
are beyond the scope of the proposed
rule changes. The commenters did not
submit any data on the cost of the
suggested changes, nor have they been
estimated as part of this rulemaking.
While they may be worthy
considerations for future rulemaking,
none of the suggested changes are
necessary as part of the changes being
adopted in this rulemaking. No changes
have been made to the final rule based
on these suggestions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

T. Comments on Cost/Benefit Analysis
Empire Airlines said that the FAA’s
cost-benefit analysis did not consider
the cumulative economic impact of the
several operational and equipment rules
the agency has issued during the last
two years.
Our regulatory evaluations estimate
the cost of each rule individually.
Different rules affect different parties
and the cumulative impact on any one
operator would be impossible to
estimate and would not be relevant for
any other operator.
An individual commented that the
FAA’s economic analysis did not
include the cost to re-engineer
equipment and to install the equipment
for recording datalink communications
if DLC equipment is installed after the
compliance date.
In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation,
we estimated a cost of $762,500 the first
time a manufacturer engineers a DLC
recording system. We estimated a cost of
$262,500 for engineering the second
airplane model, presuming much of the
work from the first can carry over.
Similarly, we estimated an engineering
cost of $75,000 for each remaining
model in a series. Retrofitting an aircraft
to be DLC capable would require
significant engineering, while the cost of
engineering to record datalink
communications would be a minimal
extension of the overall effort with a
resultant minimal cost.
Bell Helicopter stated that compliance
with the ‘‘no single electrical failure
could disable both the CVR and DFDR’’
requirement is open to two
interpretations—each of which would
have different cost implications. If the
correct interpretation were that ‘‘No
failure of a single electrical bus shall
disable both the CVR and DFDR’’, it
estimates that it would cost $100,000
per ‘‘application’’ to comply with the
rule, plus a recurring cost of
approximately $5,000 to the operator. If
the correct interpretation is that ‘‘No
single electrical failure external to the
recorder, or the failure of any single
electrical component within a combined
CVR/DFDR, shall disable both the CVR
and DFDR’’, Bell states that all or most
of the current recorders will be obsolete.
If this occurs, ‘‘a major industry wide
design will be required.’’ Bell estimates
that costs for development of a new
recorder and TSO would be in the
millions of dollars, recertification costs
will be approximately $250,000 per
model, and the recurrent costs to
operators will approach $50,000 per
rotorcraft to replace existing recorders.’’
As discussed previously, we have
added the phrase ‘‘external to the

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12555

recorder’’ to clarify our intent. We
accept Bell’s estimated cost of $100,000
per model with a recurring cost of
$5,000 to the operator. The IATA
commented that the airlines must carry
the costs of all the new requirements,
and that the FAA did not substantiate
the benefits of the proposed changes in
the accidents cited in the NPRM. The
IATA also noted that the proposed
benefits are speculative, in that they
‘‘may result in safety benefits,’’ and thus
do not justify the costs in equipment
and impact on operations.
As described in the Initial Regulatory
Evaluation, any benefits from this final
rule are dependent upon investigating
authorities gaining additional, better
quality information that they are able to
use to determine the causes of future
accidents with greater certainty, which
could result in safety improvements
being adopted sooner. We are unable to
predict with certainty whether this
additional information will or will not
provide incremental benefits in the
investigation of any future accident or
incident. This has always been true for
flight recorder requirements, which by
nature do not fit the traditional cost/
benefit analysis. As always, we rely on
the expertise of the NTSB that the
additional information is important to
its ability to fully investigate accidents
and incidents as aircraft technology
evolves.
Regarding the proposal to require 2hour solid state CVRs, Northwest
commented that it would have to
modify 105 of its 30-minute solid state
CVRs at a cost of $767,000 (a per
airplane cost of about $7,300) and
replace 15 CVRs at a cost of $180,000 (a
per airplane cost of $12,000).
In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation,
we estimated retrofitting a 30-minute
solid state CVR would cost about $8,140
($7,500 for the equipment and $640 for
the labor). Since our estimates were
based on older information, we accept
Northwest’s estimate of $7,300 per
airplane and have used it in the Final
Regulatory Evaluation. We also
estimated that it would cost $17,500 to
replace a unit, and are adopting
Northwest’s estimate for use in the Final
Regulatory Evaluation. No other
comments on these costs were received.
Northwest also described three costs
it believes should be added to the
regulatory evaluation: (1) The cost to
modify a solid-state CVR from TSO–
C123 to TSO–C123a; (2) The cost for
new test equipment to download and
decode additional datalink information
from the CVR; and (3) The additional
routine maintenance cost, such as
battery reconditioning, for the CVR–
RIPS installed on new aircraft.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12556

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Regarding the cost of conversion to
TSO–C123a, we contacted four of the
major equipment vendors, who stated
that their CVRs manufactured under
TSO–C123 already meet the
requirements of TSO–C123a, and that if
necessary, a service bulletin could be
issued to re-identify the recorder.
Regarding the cost of DLC test
equipment, as we stated in the Initial
Regulatory Evaluation, we believe this
cost would be minimal. Northwest did
not provide any estimated costs for this
item, no other commenter raised it as a
cost issue, and DLC remains an optional
installation. Accordingly, we have no
basis to change our estimates on the cost
of this item.
Regarding additional maintenance
costs, in the Initial Regulatory
Evaluation we estimated that the
average RIPS battery would be replaced
every two years; we will continue to use
that estimate in our cost calculations.
We also estimated that one additional
hour would be required for the CVRRIPS system maintenance; we have used
that estimate in our cost calculations in
the Final Regulatory Evaluation.
Boeing stated that the total cost of all
the proposed requirements were
undervalued by 20 to 35 percent. In
making this statement, Boeing cites
costs associated with equipment,
testing, and certification and
‘‘uncertainties in the statement of work’’
such as the DLC requirements ‘‘are
driving a level of assumptions that affect
potential cost outcomes.’’
We accept that Boeing’s information
is based on more recent information
than we used for the Initial Regulatory
Evaluation, and have revised our Final
Regulatory Evaluation to include this
estimate. No other commenters
presented specific information
addressing this issue.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

Section-By-Section Analysis
The following is a summary of the
changes to the current text of the
regulations. This summary does not
include the reasons for these changes
because we have already discussed
them as part of the above disposition of
comments.
A. Part 23—Airworthiness Standards:
Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category Airplanes
Section 23.1457, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
requiring the recordation of datalink
communications. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(2) Amend paragraph (d)(1) to add the
duration of CVR power as a sentence at

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

the end of the paragraph. No change was
made from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (d)(4)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR. The final
rule adds the phrase ‘‘external to the
recorder’’ as requested by commenters
to clarify where the failure may not
occur.
(4) Add a new paragraph (d)(5) that
requires an independent power source
for the CVR and the cockpit-mounted
area microphone, the capacity for
automatic switching to the independent
source, and the allowable location of the
power source. At the request of the
commenters, the final rule specifies the
duration of power as 10 +/-1 minutes,
adds the area microphone, and specifies
the location of the power source.
(5) Add a new paragraph (d)(6)
requiring that the CVR be in a separate
container from the flight data recorder.
No change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
(6) Revise paragraph (e) by expanding
the CVR location requirements to
include the use of a combination
recorder that acts as the CVR and its
location near the cockpit. This was not
included in the language proposed in
the NPRM. Comments concerning the
use of combination recorders with an
independent power source led to the
addition of these provisions to clarify
these possibilities and change the
allowable location of the CVR.
Section 23.1459, Flight data recorders,
is being amended to:
(1) Revise paragraph (a)(3) to add the
duration of DFDR power as a sentence
at the end of the paragraph. No change
was made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR. The final
rule adds the phrase ‘‘external to the
recorder’’ as requested by commenters
to clarify where the failure may not
occur.
(3) Add a new paragraph (a)(7)
requiring that the DFDR be in a separate
container from the CVR, and that a
combination recorder may be used. If a
combination recorder is used to comply
with the CVR requirement and located
near the cockpit, the aft-mounted DFDR
used to comply with this paragraph
must also be a combination unit. The
language proposed in the NPRM was
changed to mirror the revised
requirement for CVRs in § 23.1457(d)(6)
and (e)(2).

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

B. Part 25—Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Airplanes
Section 25.1457, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
requiring the recordation of datalink
communications. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(2) Amend paragraph (d)(1) to add the
duration of CVR power as a sentence at
the end of the paragraph. No change was
made from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (d)(4)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR. The final
rule adds the phrase ‘‘external to the
recorder’’ as requested by commenters
to clarify where the failure may not
occur.
(4) Add a new paragraph (d)(5) that
requires an independent power source
for the CVR and the cockpit-mounted
area microphone, the capacity for
automatic switching to the independent
source, and the allowable location of the
power source. At the request of the
commenters, the final rule specifies the
duration of power as 10 ± 1 minutes,
adds the area microphone, and specifies
the location of the power source.
(5) Add a new paragraph (d)(6)
requiring that the CVR be in a separate
container from the flight data recorder.
No change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
(6) Revise paragraph (e) by expanding
the CVR location requirements to
include the use of a combination
recorder that acts as the CVR and its
location near the cockpit. This was not
included in the language proposed in
the NPRM. Comments concerning the
use of combination recorders with an
independent power source led to the
addition of these provisions to clarify
these possibilities and change the
allowable location of the CVR.
Section 25.1459, Flight data recorders,
is being amended to:
(1) Revise paragraph (a)(3) to add the
duration of DFDR power as a sentence
at the end of the paragraph. No change
was made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (a)(7)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR. The final
rule adds the phrase ‘‘external to the
recorder’’ as requested by commenters
to clarify where the failure may not
occur.
(3) Add a new paragraph (a)(8)
requiring that the DFDR be in a separate
container from the CVR, and that a
combination recorder may be used. If a
combination recorder is used to comply

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

with the CVR requirement and located
near the cockpit, the aft-mounted DFDR
used to comply with this paragraph
must also be a combination unit. This
language proposed in the NPRM was
changed to mirror the revised
requirement for CVRs in § 25.1457(d)(6)
and (e)(2).
C. Part 27—Airworthiness Standards:
Normal Category Rotorcraft
Section 27.1457, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
requiring the recordation of datalink
communications. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(2) Revise paragraph (d)(1) to add the
duration of CVR power as a sentence at
the end of the paragraph. No change was
made from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (d)(4)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR whether
installed as separate units or as a single
combined unit. The final rule adds the
phrase ‘‘external to the recorder’’ as
requested by commenters to clarify
where the failure may not occur.
(4) Add a new paragraph (d)(5) that
requires an independent power source
for the CVR and the cockpit-mounted
area microphone, the capacity for
automatic switching to the independent
source, and the allowable location of the
power source. At the request of the
commenters, the final rule specifies the
duration of power as 10 ± 1 minutes,
adds the area microphone, and specifies
the location of the power source.
(5) Add a new paragraph (h) to allow
the installation of a single combined
unit when both a cockpit voice recorder
and flight data recorder are required.
The language was changed to clarify
that combination recorders must meet
all of the CVR and DFDR standards.
Section 27.1459, Flight data recorders,
is being amended to:
(1) Revise paragraph (a)(3) to add the
duration of DFDR power as a sentence
at the end of the paragraph. No change
was made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR whether
installed as separate units or as a single
combined unit. The final rule adds the
phrase ‘‘external to the recorder’’ as
requested by commenters to clarify
where the failure may not occur.
(3) Add a new paragraph (e) to allow
the installation of a single combined
unit when both a cockpit voice recorder
and flight data recorder are required.
The language was changed to clarify

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

12557

that combination recorders must meet
all of the CVR and DFDR standards.

E. Part 91—General Operating and
Flight Rules

D. Part 29—Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Rotorcraft

Section 91.609, Flight data recorders
and cockpit voice recorders, is being
amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (c)(2) that
includes the separate container
requirements for CVRs and DFDRs on
part 23 or part 25 airplanes. The
requirement to retain the last 25 hours
of recorded DFDR data, which was
proposed in the NPRM as a retrofit, is
not included.
(2) Add a new paragraph (c)(3),
applicable to aircraft manufactured two
years after the effective date of this rule,
that requires compliance with all
provisions of the flight data recorder
certification requirements in §§ 23.1459,
25.1459, 27.1459, or 29.1459, as
applicable. The additions to these
sections include the power duration
requirement, the single electrical failure
requirement, and the separate container/
combination unit requirements noted in
the amendments to the certification
parts. New paragraph (c)(3) also requires
that these newly manufactured
airplanes have DFDRs that retain the
last 25 hours of recorded information
using a recorder that meets the standard
of TSO–C124a, or later revision. The
language proposed in the NPRM was
changed slightly for clarification; no
substantive changes to the proposed
requirements were made.
(3) The proposed revision to
paragraph (e)(2) to include new
‘‘checklist-to-checklist’’ language is not
included in this final rule. No retrofit of
this new procedure is required; the
previous version of this language in
paragraph (e)(2) remains in effect.
(4) Add a new paragraph (h) that
includes the separate container
requirements for CVRs and DFDRs on
part 23 or part 25 airplanes. (Note that
this was proposed as paragraph (i)
because the paragraph (h) designation
was proposed in a separate rulemaking
that is not yet final). This paragraph also
requires transport category airplanes to
meet additional recording requirements
in §§ 23.1457 or 25.1457, as proposed in
the NPRM. The requirement to retain
two hours of recorded information on a
CVR that meets the requirements of
TSO–C123a, which was proposed in the
NPRM as a retrofit, is not included.
(5) Add a new paragraph (i),
applicable to aircraft manufactured two
years after the effective date of this rule,
that requires compliance with all
provisions of the cockpit voice recorder
certification requirements in §§ 23.1457,
25.1457, 27.1457, or 29.1457, as
applicable. The additions to these
sections include the power duration

Section 29.1457, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
requiring the recordation of datalink
communications. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(2) Revise paragraph (d)(1) to add the
duration of CVR power as a sentence at
the end of the paragraph. No change was
made from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (d)(4)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR whether
installed as separate units or as a single
combined unit. The final rule adds the
phrase ‘‘external to the recorder’’ as
requested by commenters to clarify
where the failure may not occur.
(4) Add a new paragraph (d)(5) that
requires an independent power source
for the CVR and the cockpit-mounted
area microphone, the capacity for
automatic switching to the independent
source, and the allowable location of the
power source. At the request of the
commenters, the final rule specifies the
duration of power as 10 ± 1 minutes,
adds the area microphone, and specifies
the location of the power source.
(5) Add a new paragraph (h) to allow
the installation of a single combined
unit when both a cockpit voice recorder
and flight data recorder are required.
The language was changed to clarify
that combination recorders must meet
all of the CVR and DFDR standards.
Section 29.1459, Flight data recorders,
is being amended to:
(1) Revise paragraph (a)(3) to add the
duration of DFDR power as a sentence
at the end of the paragraph. No change
was made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (a)(6)
regarding a single electrical failure not
disabling the CVR and DFDR whether
installed as separate units or as a single
combined unit. The final rule adds the
phrase ‘‘external to the recorder’’ as
requested by commenters to clarify
where the failure may not occur.
(3) Add a new paragraph (e) to allow
the installation of a single combined
unit when both a cockpit voice recorder
and flight data recorder are required.
The language was changed to clarify
that combination recorders must meet
all of the CVR and DFDR standards.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12558

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

requirement, the single electrical failure
requirement, and the separate container/
combination unit requirements noted in
the amendments to the certification
parts. This paragraph also requires that
newly manufactured airplanes retain the
last two hours of recorded information
and that the CVR meets the
requirements of TSO–C123a, or later
revision. These requirements are
adopted as proposed, except for a
change in the paragraph designation.
(6) Add a new paragraph (j) that
requires all airplanes and rotorcraft that
are required to have a CVR to record
datalink communications if they install
DLC equipment two years after the
effective date of this rule. This
requirement is adopted as proposed
except for a change in the paragraph
designation.
(7) Appendix E to part 91, Airplane
Flight Recorder Specifications, is being
amended to add footnote 5 to the
parameter for Stabilizer Trim Position or
Pitch Control Position. No change was
made from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
(8) Appendix F to part 91, Helicopter
Flight Recorder Specifications, is being
amended to add footnote 4 changing the
sampling interval for five parameters.
No change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
F. Part 121—Operating Requirements:
Domestic Flag and Supplemental
Operations
Section 121.343, Flight recorders, is
being amended to:
(1) Revise the title of the section to
say ‘‘Flight data recorders.’’
(2) Revise paragraph (c) to change the
date from 1994 to 1995.
(3) Add a new paragraph (m) to
specify that after August 20, 2001,
§ 121.343 applies only to the aircraft
models listed in § 121.344(l)(2). No
change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 121.344, Digital flight data
recorders for transport category
airplanes, is being amended to add a
new paragraph (m) that requires all
newly manufactured airplanes comply
with additional paragraphs of § 25.1459,
and have a DFDR that retains the last 25
hours of recorded information and meet
the standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision. No change was made from the
language proposed in the NPRM, except
for the paragraph designation.
Section 121.344a, Digital flight data
recorders for 10–19 seat airplanes, is
being amended to add a new paragraph
(g) that requires all newly manufactured
airplanes comply with additional
paragraphs of §§ 23.1459 or 25.1459,
and have DFDRs that retain the last 25

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

hours of recorded data and meet the
standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision. No change was made from the
language proposed in the NPRM.
Section 121.359, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (i) that
requires airplanes manufactured before
April 7, 2010 be retrofitted with CVRs
that meet the separate container
requirement, retain the last two hours of
recorded information using a CVR that
meets the standard of TSO–C123a, or
later revision, and meet additional
recording requirements in §§ 23.1457 or
25.1457. Four years is allowed for the
retrofit of these items. We are not
adopting the checklist to checklist
language proposed in the NPRM. We are
adopting the same checklist to checklist
language as exists in other applicability
paragraphs of this section. Otherwise,
no change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (j) that
requires newly manufactured airplanes
have a CVR that meets all of §§ 23.1457
or 25.1457, and retains the last two
hours of recorded information using a
CVR that meets the standard of TSO–
C123a, or later revision. We are not
adopting the checklist to checklist
language proposed in the NPRM. We are
adopting the same checklist to checklist
language as exists in other applicability
paragraphs of this section. Otherwise,
no change was made from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (k) that
requires the recordation of datalink
communications if DLC equipment is
installed two years after the effective
date of this rule. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
Appendix M to part 121, Airplane
Flight Recorder Specifications, is
amended to:
(1) Revise parameter 1 to correct a
typographical error.
(2) Revise parameters 12a, 12b, 13a,
13b, 14a, 14b, 15, 16, 17, and 88 to add
footnote 18 (proposed as footnote 20) for
newly manufactured airplanes. Footnote
18 changes the seconds per sampling
interval to 0.125 for these parameters
and prohibits alternate sampling
(interleaving). The NPRM proposed 16
Hz for these parameters; the final rule
requires they be sampled and recorded
at 8 Hz, and adds the prohibition on
interleaving samples.
(3) The NPRM publication of the
appendix included several errors in the
resolution column; none of the current
resolution percentages are being
changed.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

G. 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
Section 125.225, Flight recorders, is
being amended to:
(1) Revise the title of the section to
say ‘‘Flight data recorders.’’
(2) Add a new paragraph (j) to specify
that after August 20, 2001, § 125.225
applies only to the aircraft models listed
in § 125.226(l)(2). No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
Section 125.226, Digital flight data
recorders, is being amended to add a
new paragraph (m) that requires all
newly manufactured airplanes comply
with additional paragraphs of § 25.1459,
and have a DFDR that retains the last 25
hours of recorded data and meet the
standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision. No change was made from the
language proposed in the NPRM, except
for the paragraph designation.
Section 125.227, Cockpit voice
recorders, is being amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (g) that
requires airplanes manufactured before
April 7, 2010 to retrofit their CVRs to
meet the separate container
requirement, retain the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a CVR that
meets the standard of TSO–C123a, or
later revision, and meet additional
paragraphs of § 25.1457. Four years is
allowed for the retrofit of these items.
We are not adopting the checklist to
checklist language proposed in the
NPRM. We are adopting the same
checklist to checklist language as exists
in paragraph (a) of this section.
Otherwise, no change was made from
the language proposed in the NPRM.
(2) Add a new paragraph (h) that
requires newly manufactured airplanes
have a CVR that meets all of § 25.1457,
retains the last 2 hours of recorded
information using a CVR that meets the
standard of TSO–C123a, or later
revision. We are not adopting the
checklist to checklist language proposed
in the NPRM. We are adopting the same
checklist to checklist language as exists
in paragraph (a) of this section.
Otherwise, no change was made from
the language proposed in the NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (i) that
requires the recordation of datalink
communications if DLC equipment is
installed two years after the effective
date of this rule. No change was made
from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
Appendix E to part 125, Airplane
Flight Recorder Specifications, is being
amended to:

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Revise parameters 12a, 12b, 13a,
13b, 14a, 14b, 15, 16, 17, and 88 to add
footnote 18 (proposed as footnote 20) for
newly manufactured airplanes. Footnote
18 changes the seconds per sampling
interval to 0.125 for these parameters
and prohibits alternate sampling
(interleaving). The NPRM proposed 16
Hz for these parameters; the final rule
requires they be sampled and recorded
at 8 Hz, and adds the prohibition on
interleaving samples.
(2) Revise parameter 23 to correct an
errant reference to part 121. No changes
were made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
(3) The NPRM publication of the
appendix included several errors in the
resolution column; none of the current
resolution percentages are being
changed.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

H. Part 129—Operations: Foreign Air
Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S.Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common
Carriage
Section 129.1, Applicability, is being
amended to revise paragraph (b) to add
new § 129.24 (proposed as § 129.22) to
the applicability. The NPRM
inadvertently omitted several section
references from this paragraph and did
not account for other changes that had
been made to § 129.1. The only change
being adopted is the added reference to
§ 129.22 on CVRs.
Section 129.24 (proposed as § 129.22),
Cockpit voice recorders, is being added.
This section requires that airplanes
operated under part 129 be equipped
with an approved CVR that meets the
standards of TSO–C123a, or later
revision, and record the information
that the airplane would be required to
record if it were operated under part
121, 125, or 135, using the compliance
times for the applicable part. No change
was made from the language proposed
in the NPRM.
I. Part 135—Operating Requirements:
Commuter and On Demand Operations
and Rules Governing Persons On Board
Such Aircraft
Section 135.151, Cockpit voice
recorders, is amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (f) that
includes the separate container
requirements for CVRs and DFDRs on
part 23 or part 25 airplanes. This
paragraph also requires transport
category airplanes to meet additional
recording requirements in §§ 23.1457 or
25.1457, as proposed in the NPRM. The
requirement to retain two hours of
recorded information on a CVR that
meets the requirements of TSO–C123a,
which was proposed in the NPRM as a
retrofit, is not included.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

(2) Add a new paragraph (g),
applicable to certain aircraft
manufactured two years after the
effective date of this rule, that requires
compliance with specified provisions of
the cockpit voice recorder certification
requirements in § 23.1457, § 25.1457,
§ 27.1457, or § 29.1457, as applicable.
The additions to these sections include
the power duration requirement, the
single electrical failure requirement, and
the separate container/combination unit
requirements noted in the amendments
to the certification parts. This paragraph
also requires that newly manufactured
airplanes retain the last two hours of
recorded information and that the CVR
meets the requirements of TSO–C123a,
or later revision. The checklist to
checklist language being adopted is the
same language that exists in paragraphs
(a)(2) and (b) (2) of this section, not the
language proposed in the NPRM.
Otherwise, no change was made to the
language proposed in the NPRM.
(3) Add a new paragraph (h), that
requires all airplanes or rotorcraft that
are required to have a CVR to record
datalink communications if DLC
equipment is installed two years after
the effective date of this rule. No change
was made to the language proposed in
the NPRM.
Section 135.152, Flight recorders, is
amended to:
(1) Add a new paragraph (l) that
requires separate containers for CVRs
and DFDRs on airplanes, and allows for
combined recorders on rotorcraft.
(2) Add a new paragraph (m) that
requires that newly manufactured
airplanes have a DFDR that meets
additional provisions of the flight data
recorder certification requirements in
§§ 23.1459, 25.1459, 27.1459, or
29.1459, as applicable. The additions to
these sections include the power
duration requirement, the single
electrical failure requirement, and the
separate container/combination unit
requirements noted in the amendments
to the certification parts. New paragraph
(m)(2) also requires that these newly
manufactured airplanes have DFDRs
that retain the last 25 hours of recorded
information using a recorder that meets
the standard of TSO–C124a, or later
revision. No change was made to the
language proposed in the NPRM.
Appendix C to part 135, Helicopter
Flight Recorder Specifications, is being
amended to add footnote 4, changing
the sampling interval for five parameters
for rotorcraft manufactured two years
after the date of the final rule. No
change was made to the language
proposed in the NPRM.
Appendix E to part 135, Helicopter
Flight Recorder Specifications, is being

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12559

amended to add footnote 3, changing
the sampling interval on the Pilot
Input—Primary Controls parameter for
rotorcraft manufactured two years after
the date of the final rule. No change was
made to the language proposed in the
NPRM.
Appendix F to part 135, Airplane
Flight Recorder Specification, is being
amended to:
(1) Correct the last word of the title of
the appendix to read ‘Specifications.’
(2) Revise parameters 12a, 12b, 13a,
13b, 14a, 14b, 15, 16, 17, and 88 to add
footnote 18 for newly manufactured
airplanes. Footnote 18 changes the
seconds per sampling interval to 0.125
for these parameters and prohibits
alternate sampling (interleaving). The
NPRM proposed 16 Hz for these
parameters; the final rule requires they
be sampled and recorded at 8 Hz, and
adds the prohibition on interleaving
samples.
(3) The NPRM publication of the
appendix included several errors in the
resolution column; none of the current
resolution percentages are being
changed.
(4) The NPRM introduced several
errors to the proposed change to
parameter 23; parameter 23 is not being
changed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements
associated with this final rule have been
approved previously by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2120–0700.
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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
and has identified the following
difference: ICAO Annex 6, section
6.3.1.5.1, calls for recording all datalink
communication messages, including
controller-pilot datalink
communications, on all aircraft by
January 1, 2007. The FAA is not
requiring the retrofit of datalink
communication recording equipment on
aircraft. The FAA intends to file a
difference with ICAO.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12560

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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, this 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 from the base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of this final rule. We
suggest readers seeking greater detail
read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which we have placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA
has determined that this final rule: (1)

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is
not an economically ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (5) will not create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States; and (6) will not impose
an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private
sector by exceeding the threshold
identified above. These analyses are
summarized below.
A. Total Costs and Benefits of This Rule
The undiscounted cost of this rule is
$239 million ($169 million in present
value terms at a discount rate of 7
percent and $206 million in present
value terms at a discount rate of 3
percent). This rule adopts certain NTSB
recommendations and is in response to
the Swissair 11 and Alaska Airlines 261
accidents. The following discussion
provides more detailed cost and benefit
information:
B. Who Is Affected by This Rule
Manufacturers of aircraft type
certificated under parts 23, 25, 27 and
29, and operators of aircraft operated
under parts 91, 121, 125, 129 and 135.
C. Assumptions and Standard Values
• Period of analysis is 2007–2017.
• Discount rates are 7 percent and 3
percent.
• Burdened labor rate for an aviation
engineer is $125 an hour.
• Burdened labor rate for an aviation
mechanic is $85 an hour.
• Number of airplanes to be
retrofitted is 7,575.

• It costs $19,900 to change from a
magnetic tape CVR to a 2-hour solid
state CVR. The change will result in an
annual operational and maintenance
cost reduction of $910 for these
airplanes.
• It costs $8,140 to change from a 30minute memory solid state CVR to a 2hour solid state CVR.
• The maximum cost for a future
production commercial airplane is
$10,020 for RIPS, for recording DLC,
and for the DFDR changes. Annual
increased operational and maintenance
costs are $1,400.
• The cost of RIPS for a future
production large helicopter is $3,840.
Annual increased operational and
maintenance costs are $1,300.
• The maximum cost for a future
production business jet is $8,520 for
RIPS, for recording DLC, and for the
DFDR changes. Annual increased
operational and maintenance costs are
$1,000.
• Cost of aviation fuel is $1.60 per
gallon.
• The primary sources for this
information are: (1) Industry responses
to a 2002 FAA survey and (2) public
comments we received in response to
the NPRM.
D. Costs of This Rule
Since the publication of the notice we
have learned that almost all of the
manufacturers have been installing the
newer equipment that was proposed
and operators have been retiring older
aircraft. As Table 1 shows, the costs
estimated in this final rule are
significantly less (approximately $90
million) than we estimated in the
NPRM.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

TABLE 1.—SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED FOR THE RULE AND FOR THE PROPOSAL
Assumption/parameter

Final rule

Present Value (7%) of Total Costs ......................................................................
Time Frame for Analysis ......................................................................................
Part 121 Airplanes:
Number of Magnetic Tape CVRs to be replaced .........................................
Number of 30-Minute Memory Solid State CVRs to be replaced ................
Number of Production Airplanes with 30-Minute Memory Recorders ..........
Percent of All Production Airplanes with 30-Minute Memory Recorders .....
Cost of Increased Memory/2 hours ..............................................................
Need RIPS (number of aircraft) ....................................................................
Cost of RIPS .................................................................................................
Record CPDLC (number of aircraft) .............................................................
Percent that will Record CPDLC ..................................................................
Increased FDR and DFDAU Capacity ..........................................................
Large Production Helicopters:
Number of Production Helicopters with 30-Minute Memory CVRs ..............
Need RIPS (number of aircraft) ....................................................................
Record CPDLC (number of aircraft) .............................................................
Business Jets:
Number of Production Business Jets for which costs were estimated ........
Miscellaneous:

$169 ........................................
11 Years (2007–2017) ............

$256
20 Years (2003–2022).

2,941 .......................................
4,634 .......................................
394 ..........................................
10% .........................................
$1,500 .....................................
3,935 .......................................
$4,180 .....................................
1,181 .......................................
20% .........................................
3,935 .......................................

5,904
3,741
13,658
100%
$3,500
13,658
$2,820
13,658
100%
13,658

0 ..............................................
259 ..........................................
0 ..............................................

1,337
1,337
1,337

3,575 .......................................

0

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

Proposal

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

12561

TABLE 1.—SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED FOR THE RULE AND FOR THE
PROPOSAL—Continued
Assumption/parameter

Final rule

Price of Aviation Fuel ...................................................................................

E. Benefits of This Rule
The rule increases the amount and
quality of the information being
recorded, which may result in new or
revised safety rules (for airplane
manufacturing or operations) or in
voluntary changes to airline and pilot
procedures that may produce a safer
fleet and operations. Although we did
not adopt all of the NTSB
recommendations concerning CVR and
DFDR modifications, we chose the
course of action that maximizes safety
benefits relative to compliance costs.
F. Alternatives Considered
We modified the proposed rule based
on the comments. In particular, unlike
the proposed rule, the final rule does
not require part 91 operators to retrofit
their airplanes. The proposed retrofit of
a 2-hour CVR would have affected
approximately 15,000 airplanes at a
total cost that would have been several
hundred million dollars. Any potential
benefits would be far outweighed by
these costs.
We had proposed new sampling
frequencies of 16 times per second for
9 flight control parameters; the final rule
requires sampling at 8 times per second.
Manufacturers commented that some
entire DFDR systems would need to be
re-engineered at a potential cost of
millions of dollars per aircraft model.
Further, recording parameters at 16
times per second would not yield
comparatively better information given
the costs to obtain it.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

G. 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-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

$1.60 .......................................

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.
However, if an agency determines that
a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA 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.
The FAA believes that this final rule
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities for the
following reasons:
The rule affects manufacturers of part
23 and part 25 airplanes. For these
manufacturers, a small entity is one
with 1,500 or fewer employees. No
manufacturer of part 23 or part 25
aircraft that could be affected by these
operational regulations (turbine
powered aircraft with 10 or more seats)
has fewer than 1,500 employees.
The rule also affects all operators of
airplanes with 10 or more seats
operating under parts 91, 121, 129, and
135. Some of these operators are small
entities that must retrofit their airplanes.
The cost to retrofit an individual
airplane is between $8,140 and $19,900.
We have operating revenue for 24 of the
46 small air carriers affected. Of these
24 small air carriers, the maximum onetime cost will be 0.71 percent of 2005’s
revenue for one airline and for the
remaining 23 small air carriers, the
percentage will not exceed 0.35 percent.
The FAA does not consider it a
significant economic impact when total
one-time compliance costs are less than
one percent of a year’s revenue.
Therefore, as the FAA Acting
Administrator, I certify that this rule
does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
H. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Proposal

Sfmt 4700

$0.75

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 assessed the
potential effect of this rule and
determined that it responds to a
domestic safety objective and is not
considered an unnecessary barrier to
trade.
I. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub L. 104–4) (the Act) 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 the
expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) 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 inflationadjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu
of $100 million.
This rule does not contain such a
mandate. The requirements of Title II do
not apply.
Executive Order 13132, 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, and therefore 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

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12562

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for
a categorical exclusion.

14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation Safety.

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
(43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order
1053.1. It has been determined that the
notice is not a major regulatory action
under the provisions of the EPCA.

14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation Safety.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You may obtain an electronic copy of
this final rule 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 may also obtain 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 notice number or docket
number of this rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Aviation safety.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with
small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within its jurisdiction. If
you are a small entity and you have a
question about this document, you may
contact your local FAA official, or the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. You may find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

§ 23.1457

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 23
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Charter flights, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 129
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part
135 Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation
safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 91, 121,
125, 129, and 135 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:

■

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY,
ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 23
continues to read as follows:

■

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

2. Amend § 23.1457 by removing the
period at the end paragraph (d)(3) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e), and
by adding new paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(4),
(d)(5), and (d)(6) to read as follows:

■

Cockpit voice recorders.

(a) * * *
(6) If datalink communication
equipment is installed, all datalink
communications, using an approved
data message set. Datalink messages
must be recorded as the output signal
from the communications unit that
translates the signal into usable data.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the cockpit
voice recorder without jeopardizing
service to essential or emergency loads.
The cockpit voice recorder must remain
powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the
airplane;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Any single electrical failure
external to the recorder does not disable

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

both the cockpit voice recorder and the
flight data recorder;
(5) It has an independent power
source—
(i) That provides 10 ± 1 minutes of
electrical power to operate both the
cockpit voice recorder and cockpitmounted area microphone;
(ii) That is located as close as
practicable to the cockpit voice
recorder; and
(iii) To which the cockpit voice
recorder and cockpit-mounted area
microphone are switched automatically
in the event that all other power to the
cockpit voice recorder is interrupted
either by normal shutdown or by any
other loss of power to the electrical
power bus; and
(6) It is in a separate container from
the flight data recorder when both are
required. If used to comply with only
the cockpit voice recorder requirements,
a combination unit may be installed.
(e) The recorder container must be
located and mounted to minimize the
probability of rupture of the container as
a result of crash impact and consequent
heat damage to the recorder from fire.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, the recorder
container must be located as far aft as
practicable, but need not be outside of
the pressurized compartment, and may
not be located where aft-mounted
engines may crush the container during
impact.
(2) If two separate combination digital
flight data recorder and cockpit voice
recorder units are installed instead of
one cockpit voice recorder and one
digital flight data recorder, the
combination unit that is installed to
comply with the cockpit voice recorder
requirements may be located near the
cockpit.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 23.1459 by revising the
section heading, by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (a)(4) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the
semicolon in paragraph (a)(5), by
revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows, and by adding new paragraphs
(a)(6) and (a)(7) to read as follows:
§ 23.1459

Flight data recorders.

(a) * * *
(3) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the flight data
recorder without jeopardizing service to
essential or emergency loads. The flight
data recorder must remain powered for
as long as possible without jeopardizing
emergency operation of the airplane;
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Any single electrical failure
external to the recorder does not disable
both the cockpit voice recorder and the
flight data recorder; and
(7) It is in a separate container from
the cockpit voice recorder when both
are required. If used to comply with
only the flight data recorder
requirements, a combination unit may
be installed. If a combination unit is
installed as a cockpit voice recorder to
comply with § 23.1457(e)(2), a
combination unit must be used to
comply with this flight data recorder
requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
4. The authority citation for part 25
continues to read as follows:

■

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

5. Amend § 25.1457 by removing the
word ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in
paragraph (d)(2), by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (d)(3) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e) to read
as follows, and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(4), (d)(5), and
(d)(6) to read as follows:

■

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

§ 25.1457

Cockpit voice recorders.

(a) * * *
(6) If datalink communication
equipment is installed, all datalink
communications, using an approved
data message set. Datalink messages
must be recorded as the output signal
from the communications unit that
translates the signal into usable data.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the cockpit
voice recorder without jeopardizing
service to essential or emergency loads.
The cockpit voice recorder must remain
powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the
airplane;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Any single electrical failure
external to the recorder does not disable
both the cockpit voice recorder and the
flight data recorder;
(5) It has an independent power
source—
(i) That provides 10 ± 1 minutes of
electrical power to operate both the
cockpit voice recorder and cockpitmounted area microphone;
(ii) That is located as close as
practicable to the cockpit voice
recorder; and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

(iii) To which the cockpit voice
recorder and cockpit-mounted area
microphone are switched automatically
in the event that all other power to the
cockpit voice recorder is interrupted
either by normal shutdown or by any
other loss of power to the electrical
power bus; and
(6) It is in a separate container from
the flight data recorder when both are
required. If used to comply with only
the cockpit voice recorder requirements,
a combination unit may be installed.
(e) The recorder container must be
located and mounted to minimize the
probability of rupture of the container as
a result of crash impact and consequent
heat damage to the recorder from fire.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, the recorder
container must be located as far aft as
practicable, but need not be outside of
the pressurized compartment, and may
not be located where aft-mounted
engines may crush the container during
impact.
(2) If two separate combination digital
flight data recorder and cockpit voice
recorder units are installed instead of
one cockpit voice recorder and one
digital flight data recorder, the
combination unit that is installed to
comply with the cockpit voice recorder
requirements may be located near the
cockpit.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 25.1459 by revising the
section heading, by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (a)(4) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the
semicolon in paragraph (a)(5), by
removing the period at the end of
paragraph (a)(6) and adding a semicolon
in its place, by revising paragraph (a)(3)
to read as follows, and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8) to read as
follows:
§ 25.1459

Flight data recorders.

(a) * * *
(3) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the flight data
recorder without jeopardizing service to
essential or emergency loads. The flight
data recorder must remain powered for
as long as possible without jeopardizing
emergency operation of the airplane;
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Any single electrical failure
external to the recorder does not disable
both the cockpit voice recorder and the
flight data recorder; and
(8) It is in a separate container from
the cockpit voice recorder when both
are required. If used to comply with
only the flight data recorder

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12563

requirements, a combination unit may
be installed. If a combination unit is
installed as a cockpit voice recorder to
comply with § 25.1457(e)(2), a
combination unit must be used to
comply with this flight data recorder
requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY
ROTORCRAFT
7. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:

■

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

8. Amend § 27.1457 by removing the
word ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in
paragraph (d)(2), by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (d)(3) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows, and by adding new paragraphs
(a)(6), (d)(4), (d)(5), and (h) to read as
follows:

■

§ 27.1457

Cockpit voice recorders.

(a) * * *
(6) If datalink communication
equipment is installed, all datalink
communications, using an approved
data message set. Datalink messages
must be recorded as the output signal
from the communications unit that
translates the signal into usable data.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the cockpit
voice recorder without jeopardizing
service to essential or emergency loads.
The cockpit voice recorder must remain
powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the
rotorcraft;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Whether the cockpit voice recorder
and digital flight data recorder are
installed in separate boxes or in a
combination unit, no single electrical
failure external to the recorder may
disable both the cockpit voice recorder
and the digital flight data recorder; and
(5) It has an independent power
source—
(i) That provides 10 ± 1 minutes of
electrical power to operate both the
cockpit voice recorder and cockpitmounted area microphone;
(ii) That is located as close as
practicable to the cockpit voice
recorder; and
(iii) To which the cockpit voice
recorder and cockpit-mounted area
microphone are switched automatically
in the event that all other power to the

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12564

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

cockpit voice recorder is interrupted
either by normal shutdown or by any
other loss of power to the electrical
power bus.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) When both a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder are
required by the operating rules, one
combination unit may be installed,
provided that all other requirements of
this section and the requirements for
flight data recorders under this part are
met.
■ 9. Amend § 27.1459 by revising the
section heading and paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows, and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(6) and (e) to read as
follows:
§ 27.1459

Flight data recorders.

(a) * * *
(3) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the flight data
recorder without jeopardizing service to
essential or emergency loads. The flight
data recorder must remain powered for
as long as possible without jeopardizing
emergency operation of the rotorcraft;
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Whether the cockpit voice recorder
and digital flight data recorder are
installed in separate boxes or in a
combination unit, no single electrical
failure external to the recorder may
disable both the cockpit voice recorder
and the digital flight data recorder.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) When both a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder are
required by the operating rules, one
combination unit may be installed,
provided that all other requirements of
this section and the requirements for
cockpit voice recorders under this part
are met.
PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
10. The authority citation for part 29
continues to read as follows:

■

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

11. Amend § 29.1457 by removing the
word ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in
paragraph (d)(2), by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (d)(3) and
adding a semicolon in its place, by
revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows, and by adding new paragraphs
(a)(6), (d)(4), (d)(5), and (h) to read as
follows:

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

■

§ 29.1457

Cockpit voice recorders.

(a) * * *
(6) If datalink communication
equipment is installed, all datalink

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

communications, using an approved
data message set. Datalink messages
must be recorded as the output signal
from the communications unit that
translates the signal into usable data.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the cockpit
voice recorder without jeopardizing
service to essential or emergency loads.
The cockpit voice recorder must remain
powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the
rotorcraft;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Whether the cockpit voice recorder
and digital flight data recorder are
installed in separate boxes or in a
combination unit, no single electrical
failure external to the recorder may
disable both the cockpit voice recorder
and the digital flight data recorder; and
(5) It has an independent power
source—
(i) That provides 10 ± 1 minutes of
electrical power to operate both the
cockpit voice recorder and cockpitmounted area microphone;
(ii) That is located as close as
practicable to the cockpit voice
recorder; and
(iii) To which the cockpit voice
recorder and cockpit-mounted area
microphone are switched automatically
in the event that all other power to the
cockpit voice recorder is interrupted
either by normal shutdown or by any
other loss of power to the electrical
power bus.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) When both a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder are
required by the operating rules, one
combination unit may be installed,
provided that all other requirements of
this section and the requirements for
flight data recorders under this part are
met.
■ 12. Amend § 29.1459 by revising the
section heading, by removing the word
‘‘ and’’ after the semicolon in paragraph
(a)(4), by removing the period at the end
of paragraph (a)(5) and adding ‘‘; and’’
in its place, by revising paragraph (a)(3)
to read as follows and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(6) and (e) to read as
follows:
§ 29.1459

Flight data recorders.

(a) * * *
(3) It receives its electrical power from
the bus that provides the maximum
reliability for operation of the cockpit
voice recorder without jeopardizing
service to essential or emergency loads.
The cockpit voice recorder must remain

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the
rotorcraft;
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Whether the cockpit voice recorder
and digital flight data recorder are
installed in separate boxes or in a
combination unit, no single electrical
failure external to the recorder may
disable both the cockpit voice recorder
and the digital flight data recorder.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) When both a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder are
required by the operating rules, one
combination unit may be installed,
provided that all other requirements of
this section and the requirements for
cockpit voice recorders under this part
are met.
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND
FLIGHT RULES
13. 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).

14. Amend § 91.609 by revising the
section heading, by redesignating
paragraph (c) as (c)(1), and by adding
new paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (h), (i), and
(j) to read as follows:
§ 91.609 Flight data recorders and cockpit
voice recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) All airplanes subject to paragraph
(c)(1) of this section that are
manufactured before April 7, 2010, by
April 7, 2012, must meet the
requirements of § 23.1459(a)(7) or
§ 25.1459(a)(8) of this chapter, as
applicable.
(c)(3) All airplanes and rotorcraft
subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section
that are manufactured on or after April
7, 2010, must meet the flight data
recorder requirements of § 23.1459,
§ 25.1459, § 27.1459, or § 29.1459 of this
chapter, as applicable, and retain at
least the last 25 hours of recorded
information using a recorder that meets
the standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) All airplanes required by this
section to have a cockpit voice recorder
and a flight data recorder, that are
manufactured before April 7, 2010, must
by April 7, 2012, have a cockpit voice
recorder that also—

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12565

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 23.1457(d)(6) or § 25.1457(d)(6) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
(2) If transport category, meets the
requirements of § 25.1457(a)(3), (a)(4),
and (a)(5) of this chapter.
(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
§ 23.1457, § 25.1457, § 27.1457, or
§ 29.1457 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.
(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 7, 2010,
must record all datalink messages as
required by the certification rule
applicable to the aircraft.
15. Amend appendix E to part 91 by
adding footnote 5 to the Stabilizer Trim
Position or Pitch Control Position,
under the heading Parameters to read as
set forth below. The text of footnotes 1,
3, and 4 is reprinted without change for
the convenience of the reader.

■

APPENDIX E TO PART 91.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS
Sampling
interval
(per
second)

Parameters

Range

Installed system 1 minimum
accuracy
(to recovered data)

*
*
Stabilizer Trim Position or Pitch Control Position 5.
*
*

*
*
Full Range ........................................

*
*
±3% unless higher uniquely required

*

1 When data sources are aircraft
instruments (except altimeters) of acceptable
quality to fly the aircraft, the recording
system, excluding these sensors (but
including all other characteristics of the
recording system), shall contribute no more
than half of the values in this column.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

3 Percent

of full range.
column applies to aircraft
manufactured after October 11, 1991.
5 For Pitch Control Position only, for all
aircraft manufactured on or after April 7,
2010, 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.
4 This

Resolution 4
read out
(percent)

*
31

1

*

*

16. Amend appendix F to part 91 by
adding footnote 4 to the Collective,
Pedal Position, Lat. Cyclic, Long. Cyclic,
and Controllable Stabilator Position,
under the heading Parameters to read as
set forth below. The text of footnotes 1
through 4 is reprinted without change
for the convenience of the reader.

■

APPENDIX F TO PART 91.—HELICOPTER FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS

Parameters

Range

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

*
*
*
Collective 4 ............................................................ Full
Pedal Position 4 ..................................................... Full
Lat. Cyclic 4 ........................................................... Full
Long. Cyclic 4 ........................................................ Full
Controllable Stabilator Position 4 .......................... Full

1 When data sources are aircraft
instruments (except altimeters) of acceptable
quality to fly the aircraft, the recording
system, excluding these sensors (but
including all other characteristics of the
recording system), shall contribute no more
than half of the values in this column.
2 Percent of full range.
3 This column applies to aircraft
manufactured after October 11, 1991.
4 For all aircraft manufactured on or after
April 7, 2010, the sampling interval per
second is 4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Installed
system 1
minimum
accuracy
(to recovered data)
(in percent)

Jkt 214001

Range
Range
Range
Range
Range

*
*
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

PART 121—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
17. 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.

18. Amend § 121.343 by revising the
section heading, by amending paragraph
(c) by revising ‘‘1994’’ to read ‘‘1995’’,
and by adding new paragraph (m) to
read as follows:
■

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

*
±3
±3
±3
±3
±3

§ 121.343

Sampling
interval
(per
second)

Resolution 3
read out
(in percent)

*
2
2
2
2
2

21
21
21
21
21

Flight data recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(m) After August 20, 2001, this
section applies only to the airplane
models listed in § 121.344(l)(2). All
other airplanes must comply with the
requirements of § 121.344, as applicable.
19. Amend § 121.344 by adding new
paragraph (m) to read as follows:

■

§ 121.344 Digital flight data recorders for
transport category airplanes.

*

*
*
*
*
(m) All aircraft subject to the
requirements of this section that are
manufactured on or after April 7, 2010,

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12566

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

must have a digital flight data recorder
installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 25.1459(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8) of this
chapter; and
(2) Retains the 25 hours of recorded
information required in paragraph (h) of
this section using a recorder that meets
the standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision.
■ 20. Amend § 121.344a by adding new
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 121.344a Digital flight data recorders for
10–19 seat airplanes.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) All airplanes subject to the
requirements of this section that are
manufactured on or after April 7, 2010,
must have a digital flight data recorder
installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements in
§ 23.1459(a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7) or
§ 25.1459(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
(2) Retains the 25 hours of recorded
information required in § 121.344(g)
using a recorder that meets the
standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision.

21. Amend § 121.359 by adding new
paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) to read as
follows:

■

§ 121.359

Cockpit voice recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(i) By April 7, 2012, all turbine
engine-powered airplanes subject to this
section that are manufactured before
April 7, 2010, must have a cockpit voice
recorder installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 23.1457(d)(6) or § 25.1457(d)(6) of this
chapter, as applicable;
(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision; and
(3) Is operated continuously from the
use of the checklist before the flight to
completion of the final checklist at the
end of the flight.
(4) If transport category, meets the
requirements in § 25.1457(a)(3), (a)(4),
and (a)(5) of this chapter.
(j) All turbine engine-powered
airplanes subject to this section that are
manufactured on or after April 7, 2010,

must have a cockpit voice recorder
installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 23.1457 or § 25.1457 of this chapter, as
applicable;
(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision; and
(3) Is operated continuously from the
use of the checklist before the flight to
completion of the final checklist at the
end of the flight.
(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
April 7, 2010, must record all datalink
messages as required by the certification
rule applicable to the airplane.
■ 22. Amend appendix M to part 121 by
revising parameters 1, 12a, 12b, 13a,
13b, 14a, 14b, 15, 16 and 17 and 88, and
adding footnote 18, to read as set forth
below. The text of footnotes 1, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8 are reprinted without change
for the convenience of the reader.
*
*
*
*
*

APPENDIX M TO PART 121.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS
Range

Accuracy
(sensor input)

Seconds per sampling interval

Resolution

1. Time or relative
times counts.1

24 Hrs, 0 to 4095 ...

± 0.125% per hour ..

4 .............................

1 sec ......................

*
12a. Pitch control(s)
position (nonfly-bywire systems).18

*
Full Range ..............

*
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

*
0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).

12b. Pitch control(s)
position (fly-by-wire
systems).3 18

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

13a. Lateral control
position(s) (nonflyby-wire).18

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).
0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).

13b. Lateral control
position(s) (fly-bywire).4 18

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

Parameters

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00026

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Remarks

UTC time preferred when
available. Count increments
each 4 seconds of system
operation.
*
*
*
0.5% of full range ... For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
0.2% of full range ...

0.2% of full range ...

0.2% of full range.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

12567

APPENDIX M TO PART 121.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS—Continued
Parameters

Range

Accuracy
(sensor input)

Seconds per sampling interval

Resolution

Remarks

14a. Yaw control position(s) (nonfly-bywire).5 18

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

0.3% of full range ...

14b. Yaw control position(s) (fly-bywire).18
15. Pitch control surface(s) position.6

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5.

0.5 ..........................

0.2% of full range ...

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).

0.3% of full range ...

Full Range ..............

18

16. Lateral control
surface(s) position.7 18

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 121.344(f).

17. Yaw control surface(s) position.8

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

*
Full Range Control
wheel ± 70 lbs.
Control column
± 85 lbs. Rudder
pedal ± 165 lbs.

*
± 5% .......................

*
1 .............................

18

*
88. All cockpit flight
control input forces
(control wheel,
control column,
rudder pedal).18

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

1 For A300 B2/B4 airplanes, resolution = 6
seconds.

*

*

*

*

*

3 For

A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.275%
(0.088°>0.064°). For A330/A340 series

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

airplanes, resolution = 2.20%
(0.703°>0.064°).
4 For A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.22%
(0.088°>0.080°). For A330/A340 series
airplanes, resolution = 1.76%
(0.703°>0.080°).

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

For airplanes fitted with multiple or split surfaces, a suitable combination of inputs
is acceptable in lieu of recording each surface separately. The control surfaces
may be sampled alternately
once per second to produce
the sampling interval of 0.5
or 0.25, as applicable.
0.3% of full range ... A suitable combination of surface position sensors is acceptable in lieu of recording
each surface separately.
The control surfaces may
be sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
0.2% of full range ... For airplanes with multiple or
split surfaces, a suitable
combination of surface position sensors is acceptable
in lieu of recording each
surface separately. The
control surfaces may be
sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5.
*
*
*
0.3% of full range ... For fly-by-wire flight control
systems, where flight control surface position is a
function of the displacement
of the control input device
only, it is not necessary to
record this parameter. For
airplanes that have a flight
control breakaway capability
that allows either pilot to
operate the control independently, record both control force inputs. The control
force inputs may be sampled alternately once per 2
seconds to produce the
sampling interval of 1.

5 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 1.18% (0.703°>0.120°).
6 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.783% (0.352°>0.090°).
7 For A330/A340 series airplanes, aileron
resolution = 0.704% (0.352°>0.100°). For
A330/A340 series airplanes, spoiler
resolution = 1.406% (0.703°>0.100°).

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12568

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

8 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.30% (0.176°>0.12°). For A330/
A340 series airplanes, seconds per sampling
interval = 1.

■

*

*

*

*

*

*

18 For all aircraft manufactured on or after
April 7, 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
23. 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.

24. Amend § 125.225 by revising the
section heading and by adding new
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

■

§ 125.225

Flight data recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(j) After August 20, 2001, this section
applies only to the airplane models
listed in § 125.226(l)(2). All other
airplanes must comply with the
requirements of § 125.226.

25. Amend § 125.226 by adding new
paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 125.226

Digital flight data recorders.

*
*
*
*
(m) All aircraft subject to the
requirements of this section that are
manufactured on or after April 7, 2010,
must have a flight data recorder
installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements in
§ 25.1459(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8) of this
chapter; and
(2) Retains the 25 hours of recorded
information required in paragraph (f) of
this section using a recorder that meets
the standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision.
■ 26. Amend § 125.227 by adding new
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as
follows:
§ 125.227

Cockpit voice recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) By April 7, 2012, all turbine
engine-powered airplanes subject to this
section that are manufactured before
April 7, 2010, must have a cockpit voice
recorder installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 25.1457(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (d)(6)
of this chapter;
(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision; and
(3) Is operated continuously from the
start of the use of the checklist (before

starting the engines for the purpose of
flight), to the completion of the final
checklist at the termination of the flight.
(h) All turbine engine-powered
airplanes subject to this section that are
manufactured on or after April 7, 2010,
must have a cockpit voice recorder
installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 25.1457(a)(3) through (a)(6), (d)(1),
(d)(4), (d)(5), and (d)(6) of this chapter;
(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision; and
(3) Is operated continuously from the
start of the use of the checklist (before
starting the engines for the purpose of
flight), to the completion of the final
checklist at the termination of the flight.
(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
April 7, 2010, must record all datalink
messages as required by the certification
rule applicable to the airplane.
■ 27. Amend appendix E to part 125 by
revising parameters 12a, 12b, 13a, 13b,
14a, 14b, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 88, and
adding footnote 18, to read as set forth
below. The text of footnotes 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, and 12 are reprinted without change
for the convenience of the reader.
*
*
*
*
*

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

APPENDIX E TO PART 125.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS
Parameters

Range

Accuracy
(sensor input)

*
12a. Pitch control(s)
position (nonfly-bywire systems) 18.

*
Full range ...............

*
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

*
0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).

12b. Pitch control(s)
position (fly-by-wire
systems) 3 18.

Full range ...............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

13a. Lateral control
position(s) (nonflyby-wire) 18.

Full range ...............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).
0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Seconds per sampling interval

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Resolution

Remarks

*
*
*
0.5% of full range ... For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
0.2% of full range.

0.2% of full range ...

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

For airplanes that have a
flight control break away capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.

12569

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX E TO PART 125.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS—Continued
Range

Accuracy
(sensor input)

Seconds per sampling interval

13b. Lateral control
position(s) (fly-bywire) 4 18.

Full range ...............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.2% of full range.

14a.Yaw control position(s) (nonfly-bywire) 5 18.

Full range ...............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).
0.5 ..........................

14b. Yaw control po- Full range ...............
sition(s) (fly-bywire) 18.
15. Pitch control sur- Full range ...............
face(s) position 6 18.

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

0.2% of full range.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).

0.3% of full range ...

16. Lateral control
surface(s) position 7 18.

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).

0.2% of full range ...

17. Yaw control surFull range ...............
face(s) position 8 18.

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

0.2% of full range ...

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

Parameters

Resolution

0.3% of full range ...

Remarks

For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5.

For airplanes fitted with multiple or split surfaces, a suitable combination of inputs
is acceptable in lieu of recording each surface separately. The control surfaces
may be sampled alternately
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
A suitable combination of surface position sensors is acceptable in lieu of recording
each surface separately.
The control surfaces may
be sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
For airplanes fitted with multiple or split surfaces, a suitable combination of surface
position sensors is acceptable in lieu of recording
each surface separately.
The control surfaces may
be sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5.

*
23. Ground Spoiler
Position or Speed
Brake Selection 12.

*
*
Full Range or Each ± 2° Unless higher
Position (discrete).
accuracy uniquely
required.

*
1 or 0.5 for airplanes operated
under
§ 125.226(f).

*
0.2% of full range.

*
88. All cockpit flight
control input forces
(control wheel,
control column,
rudder pedal) 18.

*
Full range Control
wheel ± 70 lbs.
Control column
± 85 lbs. Rudder
pedal ± 165 lbs.

*
1 .............................

*
*
*
0.3% of full range ... For fly-by-wire flight control
systems, where flight control surface position is a
function of the displacement
of the control input device
only, it is not necessary to
record this parameter. For
airplanes that have a flight
control breakaway capability
that allows control independently, record both control force inputs. The control
force inputs may be sampled alternately once per 2
seconds to produce the
sampling interval of 1.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

*
± 5% .......................

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

*

*

12570
*

*

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
*

*

*

3 For

A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.275%
(0.088°>0.064°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, resolution
= 2.20% (0.703°>0.064°).
4 For A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.22%
(0.088°>0.080°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, resolution
= 1.76% (0.703°>0.080°).
5 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 1.18% (0.703°>0.120°).
6 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.783% (0.352°>0.090°).
7 For A330/A340 series airplanes, aileron
resolution = 0.704% (0.352°>0.100°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, spoiler
resolution = 1.406% (0.703°>0.100°).
8 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.30% (0.176°>0.12°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, seconds
per sampling interval = 1.

*

*

*

*

*

12 For

A330/A340 series airplanes, spoiler
resolution = 1.406% (0.703°>0.100°).

*

*

*

*

*

18 For

all aircraft manufactured on or after
April 7, 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 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN
AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN
OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED
AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON
CARRIAGE
28. The authority citation for part 129
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119,
44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,
44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904,
44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107–71, sec.
104.

29. Amend § 129.1 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

■

§ 129.1

Applicability.

*
*
*
*
(b) Operations of U.S.-registered
aircraft solely outside the United States.
In addition to the operations specified
under paragraph (a) of this section,
§§ 129.14, 129.16, 129.20, 129.24,
129.32 and 129.33 also apply to U.S.registered aircraft operated solely
outside the United States in common
carriage by a foreign person or foreign
air carrier.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. Amend part 129 by adding new
§ 129.24 to read as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

*

§ 129.24

Cockpit voice recorders.

No person may operate an aircraft
under this part that is registered in the
United States unless it is equipped with

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

an approved cockpit voice recorder that
meets the standards of TSO–C123a, or
later revision. The cockpit voice
recorder must record the information
that would be required to be recorded if
the aircraft were operated under part
121, 125, or 135 of this chapter, and
must be installed by the compliance
times required by that part, as
applicable to the aircraft.
PART 135—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND
ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND
RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON
BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
31. 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.

32. Amend § 135.151 by adding new
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as
follows:

■

§ 135.151

Cockpit voice recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) By April 7, 2012, all airplanes
subject to paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)
of this section that are manufactured
before April 7, 2010, and that are
required to have a flight data recorder
installed in accordance with § 135.152,
must have a cockpit voice recorder that
also—
(1) Meets the requirements in
§ 23.1457(d)(6) or § 25.1457(d)(6) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
(2) If transport category, meet the
requirements in § 25.1457(a)(3), (a)(4),
and (a)(5) of this chapter.
(g)(1) No person may operate a
multiengine, turbine-powered airplane
or rotorcraft that is manufactured on or
after April 7, 2010, that has a passenger
seating configuration of six or more
seats, for which two pilots are required
by certification or operating rules, and
that is required to have a flight data
recorder under § 135.152, unless it is
equipped with an approved cockpit
voice recorder that also—
(i) Is installed in accordance with the
requirements of § 23.1457, § 25.1457,
§ 27.1457(a)(6), (d)(1), (d)(4), (d)(5), and
(h), or § 29.1457(a)(6), (d)(1), (d)(4),
(d)(5), and (h) of this chapter, as
applicable;
(ii) Is operated continuously from the
use of the check list before the flight, to
completion of the final check list at the
end of the flight; and
(iii) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(2) No person may operate a
multiengine, turbine-powered airplane
or rotorcraft that is manufactured on or
after April 7, 2010, has a passenger
seating configuration of 20 or more
seats, and that is required to have a
flight data recorder under § 135.152,
unless it is equipped with an approved
cockpit voice recorder that also—
(i) Is installed in accordance with the
requirements of § 23.1457, § 25.1457,
§ 27.1457(a)(6), (d)(1), (d)(4), (d)(5), and
(h), or § 29.1457(a)(6), (d)(1), (d)(4),
(d)(5), and (h) of this chapter, as
applicable;
(ii) Is operated continuously from the
use of the check list before the flight, to
completion of the final check list at the
end of the flight; and
(iii) Retains at least the last 2 hours of
recorded information using a recorder
that meets the standards of TSO–C123a,
or later revision.
(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 April 7, 2010,
must record all datalink messages as
required by the certification rule
applicable to the aircraft.
■ 33. Amend § 135.152 by revising the
section heading and by adding new
paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as
follows:
§ 135.152

Flight data recorders.

*

*
*
*
*
(l) By April 7, 2012, all aircraft
manufactured before April 7, 2010, must
also meet the requirements in
§ 23.1459(a)(7), § 25.1459(a)(8),
§ 27.1459(e), or § 29.1459(e) of this
chapter, as applicable.
(m) All aircraft manufactured on or
after April 7, 2010, must have a flight
data recorder installed that also—
(1) Meets the requirements of
§ 23.1459(a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7),
§ 25.1459(a)(3), (a)(7), and (a)(8),
§ 27.1459(a)(3), (a)(6), and (e), or
§ 29.1459(a)(3), (a)(6), and (e) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
(2) Retains the 25 hours of recorded
information required in paragraph (d) of
this section using a recorder that meets
the standards of TSO–C124a, or later
revision.
■ 34. Amend appendix C to part 135 by
adding footnote 4 to the Collective,
Pedal Position, Lat. Cyclic, Long. Cyclic,
and Controllable Stabilator Position,
under the heading Parameters to read as
set forth below. The text of footnotes 1
through 3 is reprinted without change
for the convenience of the reader.

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

12571

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX C TO PART 135.—HELICOPTER FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS

Parameters

Installed
system 1
minimum
accuracy
(to recovered data)
(percent)

Range

*
*
*
Collective 4 ............................................................ Full
Pedal Position 4 ..................................................... Full
Lat. Cyclic 4 ........................................................... Full
Long. Cyclic 4 ........................................................ Full
Controllable Stabilator Position 4 .......................... Full

Range
Range
Range
Range
Range

*
*
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

Sampling interval (per
second)

*
±3
±3
±3
±3
±3

Resolution 1
read out
(percent)

*
21

2
2
2
2
2

21
21
21
21

1 When

data sources are aircraft instruments (except altimeters) of acceptable quality to fly the aircraft, the recording system, excluding these
sensors (but including all other characteristics of the recording system), shall contribute no more than half of the values in this column.
2 Percent of full range.
3 This column applies to aircraft manufactured after October 11, 1991.
4 For all aircraft manufactured on or after April 7, 2010, the sampling interval per second is 4.

35. Amend appendix E to part 135 by
adding footnote 3 to the Pilot Input—
Primary Controls (Collective,

■

Longitudinal Cyclic, Lateral Cyclic,
Pedal) parameter to read as set forth
below. The text of footnotes 1 and 2 is

reprinted without change for the
convenience of the reader.

APPENDIX E TO PART 135.—HELICOPTER FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS

Parameters

Range

Accuracy
sensor input
to DFDR
readout
(percent)

Sampling interval (per
second)

*
±3

2

*
*
*
*
*
Pilot Input—Primary Controls (Collective, Longi- Full Range ............................................................
tudinal Cyclic, Lateral Cyclic, Pedal) 3.
*

*

*

*

*

Resolution 2
read out
(percent)

*

*

1 0.5

*

1 Percent

of full range.
column applies to aircraft manufactured after October 11, 1991.
2 3 For all aircraft manufactured on or after April 7, 2010, the sampling interval per second is 4.
2 This

36. Amend appendix F to part 135 by
revising the appendix heading and
parameters 12a, 12b, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b,

■

15, 16, 17, and 88, and adding footnote
18, to read as set forth below. The text
of footnotes 3 through 8 is reprinted

without change for the convenience of
the reader.
*
*
*
*
*

APPENDIX F TO PART 135.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS
Parameters

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

*

Accuracy (sensor
input)

Range

*

*

12a. Pitch control(s)
position (nonfly-bywire systems) 18.

Full Range ..............

12b. Pitch control(s)
position (fly-by-wire
systems) 3 18.

Full Range ..............

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Seconds per sampling interval

Resolution

*
*
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

*
*
*
0.5 or 0.25 for air0.5% of full range ...
planes operated
under § 135.152(j).

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for air0.2% of full range ...
planes operated
under § 135.152(j).

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Remarks

*
For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.

12572

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

APPENDIX F TO PART 135.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS—Continued
Parameters

Range

Accuracy (sensor
input)

13a. Lateral control
position(s) (nonflyby-wire) 18.

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for air0.2% of full range ...
planes operated
under § 135.152(j).

13b. Lateral control
position(s) (fly-bywire) 4 18.
14a. Yaw control position(s) (nonfly-bywire) 5 18.

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for air0.2% of full range ...
planes operated
under § 135.152(j).
0.5 .......................... 0.3% of full range ...

14b. Yaw control po- Full Range ..............
sition(s) (fly-bywire) 18.
15. Pitch control sur- Full Range ..............
face(s) position 6 18.

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.
± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

0.2% of full range ...

0.5 or 0.25 for airplanes operated
under
§ 135.152(j)..

0.3% of full range ...

16. Lateral control
surface(s) position 7 18.

Full Range ..............

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 or 0.25 for air0.2% of full range ...
planes operated
under § 135.152(j).

17. Yaw control surFull Range ..............
face(s) position 8 18.

± 2° unless higher
accuracy uniquely
required.

0.5 ..........................

VerDate Aug<31>2005

Full Range ..............

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Seconds per sampling interval

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Resolution

0.2% of full range ...

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2

Remarks
For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.

For airplanes that have a
flight control breakaway capability that allows either
pilot to operate the controls
independently, record both
control inputs. The control
inputs may be sampled alternately once per second
to produce the sampling of
0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.

For airplanes fitted with multiple or split surfaces, a suitable combination of inputs
is acceptable in lieu of recording each surface separately. The control surfaces
may be sampled alternately
to produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
A suitable combination of surface position sensors is acceptable in lieu of recording
each surface separately.
The control surfaces may
be sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5 or 0.25, as applicable.
For airplanes with multiple or
split surfaces, a suitable
combination of surface position sensors is acceptable
in lieu of recording each
surface separately. The
control surfaces may be
sampled alternately to
produce the sampling interval of 0.5.

12573

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX F TO PART 135.—AIRPLANE FLIGHT RECORDER SPECIFICATIONS—Continued
Parameters

Range

*

*

88. All cockpit flight
control input forces
(control wheel,
control column,
rudder pedal) 18.

*

*

*

*

*
Full Range Control
wheel ± 70 lbs.
Control column
± 85 lbs. Rudder
pedal ± 165 lbs.

*

A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.275%
(0.088°>0.064°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, resolution
= 2.20% (0.703°>0.064°).
4 For A318/A319/A320/A321 series
airplanes, resolution = 0.22%
(0.088°>0.080°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, resolution
= 1.76% (0.703°>0.080°).
5 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 1.18% (0.703°>0.120°).

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2

3 For

VerDate Aug<31>2005

21:04 Mar 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Accuracy (sensor
input)

Seconds per sampling interval

*
*
± 5° .........................

*
*
1 .............................

Resolution
*

*

*

*

*

18 For

all aircraft manufactured on or after
April 7, 2010, the seconds per sampling

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

*

0.3% of full range ...

6 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.783% (0.352°>0.090°).
7 For A330/A340 series airplanes, aileron
resolution = 0.704% (0.352°>0.100°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, spoiler
resolution = 1.406% (0.703°>0.100°).
8 For A330/A340 series airplanes,
resolution = 0.30% (0.176°>0.12°).
For A330/A340 series airplanes, seconds
per sampling interval = 1.

*

Remarks

For fly-by-wire flight control
systems, where flight control surface position is a
function of the displacement
of the control input device
only, it is not necessary to
record this parameter. For
airplanes that have a flight
control breakaway capability
that allows either pilot to
operate the control independently, record both control force inputs. The control
force inputs may be sampled alternately once per 2
seconds to produce the
sampling interval of 1.

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 February 19,
2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–3949 Filed 3–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

E:\FR\FM\07MRR2.SGM

07MRR2