[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15240-15241]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05371]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88360; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4121(b)

March 11, 2020.
    On January 14, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rule 4121(b) concerning the resumption of
trading following a Level 3 trading halt due to extraordinary market
volatility. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on January 23, 2020.\3\ On March 6, 2020, the
Commission extended the time period within which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change, to April 22, 2020.\4\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88004 (January 17,
2020), 85 FR 3992 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88342 (Federal
Register publication pending).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

    Rule 4121 provides a methodology for determining when to halt
trading in all stocks due to extraordinary market volatility (``market-
wide circuit breakers'' or ``MWCB''). The Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 4121(b) concerning the resumption of trading following a Level 3
market-wide circuit breaker halt.
    Pursuant to Rule 4121, a market-wide trading halt will be triggered
if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified percentages from
the prior day's closing price of that index. Currently, the triggers
are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13% (Level
2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that triggers a Level 1 or
Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m. ET and before 3:25 p.m. ET would halt
market-wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar market decline at
or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt market-wide trading. A market
decline that triggers a Level 3 halt at any time during the trading day
would halt market-wide trading until the primary listing market opens
the next trading day.
    Currently, in the event that a Level 3 market decline occurs, the
Exchange would halt trading for the remainder of the trading day, and
would not resume until the primary listing market opens the next
trading day. Thus, if the primary listing market is Nasdaq, the
Exchange would resume trading in its listed securities at 4:00 a.m. ET
on the next trading day, which is the beginning of the Exchange's Pre-
Market Session.\5\ Effectively, Nasdaq would open its listed securities
for trading following a Level 3 halt the same as a regular trading day
under its current MWCB Level 3 re-opening procedures.\6\ For non-Nasdaq
listed securities, however, Nasdaq would resume trading once the
primary listing market has re-opened the security for trading, which
time may currently vary depending on the primary listing market.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pre-Market Session means the trading session that begins at
4:00 a.m. and continues until 9:30 a.m. See Rule 4120(b)(4).
    \6\ The Nasdaq system begins accepting and processing eligible
orders in time priority at 4:00 a.m. ET. See Nasdaq Rule 4752(b) for
further description of trading in the Pre-Market Session.
    \7\ There may be cross-market differences in how each exchange
currently opens the next day after a Level 3 MWCB halt. While Nasdaq
currently resumes trading in its listed securities no differently
from a regular trading day, other exchanges may, for instance,
conduct a halt auction process instead of opening in the normal
course under their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes that a Level 3 halt would end at the end
of the trading day on which it is declared. This proposed change would
allow for next-day trading to resume in all NMS Stocks no differently
from any other trading day.\8\ To effect this change, the Exchange
proposes to delete the language in Rule 4121(b)(ii) requiring the
Exchange to wait until the primary listing exchange opens the next
trading day following a Level 3 market decline, and specify that the
Exchange will halt trading for the remainder of the trading day.\9\ The
proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to resume trading in all
securities the next trading day following a Level 3 halt no differently
than any other trading day, which for Nasdaq would be at the beginning
of the Pre-Market Session at 4:00 a.m. ET under its current rules.\10\
The Exchange also expects that the primary listing exchanges will
facilitate this change by sending resume messages to the applicable
securities information processor (``SIP'') to lift the Level 3 trading
halt message in all securities. The resumption messages will be
disseminated after the SIP has started on the next trading day and
before the start of the earliest pre-market trading session of all
exchanges. If a security is separately subject to a regulatory halt
that has not ended, the primary listing exchange would replace the
Level 3 halt message with the applicable regulatory halt message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange anticipates that the other national securities
exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to amend their
MWCB rules on the resumption of trading following Level 3 halts, and
amend their rules, where required, to have their Level 3 next-day
openings happen normally.
    \9\ Presently, the Exchange's equities trading day ends at 8:00
p.m. ET.
    \10\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has coordinated this
proposal with the other national securities exchanges and FINRA and
expects that they will file proposals with the Commission to
harmonize the MWCB rules and facilitate appropriately a cross-market
resumption of trading following a Level 3 halt that is no different
from any normal trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes, based on industry feedback, that opening in
the normal course in all equity securities as opposed to, for instance,
having a normal opening for Nasdaq-listed securities only or conducting
a halt auction prior to resuming trading, would be more beneficial to
the marketplace. The Exchange states that by allowing trading to resume
after a Level 3 halt in all securities no differently from any normal
trading day under the respective rules of each exchange, the proposed
rule change would provide greater certainty to the marketplace by
ensuring a familiar experience for all market participants that trade
NMS Stocks and balances out potential concerns around volatility. The
Exchange states that while it recognizes that the impact of this
proposal is to permit all securities to be traded in the Pre-Market
Session, which does not have certain price protections for volatility
such as LULD Bands or MWCB protections, it nonetheless believes that
this outcome is outweighed by the benefits provided by opening in the
Pre-Market Session in a manner that is more familiar to the
marketplace. The Exchange further states that allowing the resumption
of

trading to occur on the Exchange at the beginning of the Pre-Market
Session in all NMS Stocks would allow for price formation to occur
earlier in the trading day, which in turn would allow market
participants to react to news that has developed, and that, as such,
trading at the beginning of regular hours may be more orderly.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal protects
investors and the public interest because it is designed to promote
fair and orderly markets following a MWCB Level 3 halt in all
securities. The Exchange's proposal is designed to promote fair and
orderly markets in two ways. First, by permitting the resumption of
trading no differently from any normal trading day, market participants
are not forced to trade in manner differently from normal trading days
following a Level 3 market event.\13\ This is particularly important as
the market seeks to resume trading after being required to halt trading
for the remainder of the prior trading day. Secondly, the Exchange's
proposal is designed to enable price formation to occur for all
securities earlier in the trading day, which in turn could allow market
participants to react to news that has developed and may result in more
orderly trading at the beginning of regular hours.\14\ For these
reasons, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange states that it has been working with other
national securities exchanges and FINRA to establish a standardized
approach for resuming trading in all NMS Stocks following a Level 3
halt, and that the proposed approach would allow for the opening of
all securities the next trading day after a Level 3 halt as a
regular trading day, and is designed to ensure that Level 3 MWCB
events are handled in a more consistent manner that is transparent
for market participants. See Notice, supra note 3, at 3993. As noted
above, the Commission recognizes that the Exchange has filed this
proposal in consultation and coordination with the other national
securities exchanges and FINRA and expects that these SROs will file
proposals with the Commission to harmonize the MWCB rules and
facilitate appropriately a cross-market resumption of trading
following a Level 3 halt that is no different from any normal
trading day.
    \14\ The Commission recognizes that while the proposal will
permit all securities to be traded in the Exchange's Pre-Market
Session, during which certain price protections for volatility such
as LULD Price Bands or MWCB protections are not in effect, it
believes that this is justified by the benefits noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2020-003) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05371 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32106-32108]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0216]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary
safety zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker
(MM) 487.0 to MM 489.0. This action is necessary to provide for the
safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by Duke Energy's Static Wire Crossing operation taking
place on the Ohio River from MM 487.0 to MM 489.0. Entry of vessel or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port, Sector Ohio Valley or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 19, 2023,
through May 19, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from May 15, 2023, until May 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0216 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Thomas Harp, MSD Cincinnati, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 1, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule
establishing a safety zone on all waters of the Ohio River from MM
487.0 to 489.0 to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment
from potential hazards created by Duke Energy's Static Wire Crossing
operation (88 FR 28408, May 4, 2023). The original rule was effective
through May 15, 2023. However, additional time is needed to conduct the
static wire crossing, and, as a result, the Coast Guard needs to extend
the safety zone through May 19, 2023. The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant
to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a
rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency
for good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
extension because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a
reasonable comment period for this rulemaking because it is
impracticable due to the emergent nature of the continuing wire
crossing operation and required publication of this extension.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property
from the dangers associated with the static wire crossing operation.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the Duke Energy's Static Wire
Crossing operation will be a safety concern for all navigable waters on
the Ohio River from MM 487.0 to 489.0. This rule is needed to ensure
the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule extends the effective dates of an established safety
zone, originally established on May 1, 2023, and effective through May
15, 2023, through May 19, 2023. The safety zone includes all navigable
waters of the Ohio River between MM 487.0 to 489.0. The extended
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
maritime environment in these navigable waters while static wire
crossing operations are conducted.. No vessel or persons will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels may contact Sector
Ohio Valley Command Center on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 1-
800-253-7465. Person and vessel permitted to enter this regulated area
must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and

Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone will be in
place on a two mile stretch of the Ohio River between the hours of 7
a.m. through 5 p.m. through May 19, 2023, or until the work is
completed, whichever is sooner. The Coast Guard will issue a Local
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the temporary
safety zone. This rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP
or a designated representative to enter the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting for 30 days that will prohibit entry within certain
navigable waters of the Chincoteague Bay. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0216 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0216  Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati, OH.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Ohio River between mile
marker (MM) 487.0 to MM 489.0, in Finney, OH.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is

prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass
through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or
phone at 1-800-253-4765.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone listed
in paragraph (a) of this section must transit at the slowest safe speed
and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a
designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced May 1, 2023,
through May 19, 2023, unless an earlier end is announced by broadcast
notice to mariners.

    Dated: May 15, 2023.
H.R. Mattern,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2023-10766 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 942-950]
[FR Doc No: X10-50107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

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

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

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions contact:
Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics Maintenance Branch, Flight Standards
Service, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza,
SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (202)
385-4651; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Background

A. History of the Regulatory Requirements

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

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

B. Recent Industry Petitions

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

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

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

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

C. FAA Response to Petitions

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

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

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

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

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

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

Environmental Analysis

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

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

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

Additional Information

Comments Invited

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

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

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

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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

Sec.  27.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

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

Sec.  27.1459  Flight data recorders.

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

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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

Sec.  29.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

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

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

Sec.  29.1459  Flight data recorders.

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

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

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

Sec.  91.609  Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders.

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

Appendix E to Part 91--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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

Appendix F to Part 91--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  121.359  Cockpit voice recorders.

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

Appendix M to Part 121--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  125.227  Cockpit voice recorders.

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

Appendix E to Part 125--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  135.151  Cockpit voice recorders.

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

Appendix C to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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

Appendix E to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *

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

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

Appendix F to Part 135--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

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

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