[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73171-73180]
[DOCID:fr02de08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, and 125

[Docket No. FAA-1999-6482; Amendment No. 91-304, 125-56, 121-342]
RIN 2120-AG87

Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations for Boeing
737 Airplanes and for All Part 125 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA amends the regulations governing flight data recorders
to increase the number of digital flight data recorder parameters for
all Boeing 737 series airplanes manufactured after August 18, 2000.
This change is based on safety recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board following its investigations of two
accidents and several incidents involving 737s. The rule also adopts a
prohibition on deviations from flight recorder requirements for all
airplanes operated under part 125.

DATES: These amendments become effective February 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Brian A. Verna,
Avionics Systems Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-130,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (202) 385-
4651; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal issues: Karen L. Petronis,
Senior Attorney, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (202) 267-
7971; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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.

I. Background

    The following is a summary of the events leading up to this final
rule. For a more detailed discussion of these events, please refer to
the ``Background'' section of the supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking that preceded this final rule (71 FR 52382, September 5,
2006).

A. Statement of the Problem

    Two accidents in the United States involving Boeing 737 series
airplanes (737s) appear to have been caused by an uncommanded rudder
hardover, with resultant roll and sudden descent. These accidents were
United Airlines flight 585, near Colorado Springs, Colorado, on March
3, 1991, and USAir flight 427, near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, on
September 8, 1994. In addition, between 1996 and 1999, seven incidents
of suspected uncommanded rudder movement involving U.S.-registered 737s
occurred that did not result in the loss of control of the airplanes
involved.
    All the 737s mentioned above were equipped with the flight data
recorders required by the regulations then in effect. However, these
737s were not required to record (nor were they equipped to provide)
information about the airplanes' movement about their three axes or the
position of flight control surfaces immediately preceding the accidents
or incidents. Without such data, neither the FAA nor the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) could definitively identify the
causes of these suspected uncommanded rudder events.

B. FAA Actions

    Following piloted computer simulations of the USAir accident and
reports of malfunctions in the 737's yaw damper system (which moves the
rudder independent of flight crew input), the FAA mandated design
changes to the 737's rudder system. First, we issued Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 97-14-03 (62 FR 34623, June 27, 1997). This AD requires
installation of a newly designed rudder-limiting device and a newly
designed yaw damper system to address possible rudder hardover
situations and uncommanded yaw damper movements. Second, in

response to the possibility of a secondary slide jam and rudder
reversal, we issued AD 97-14-04 (62 FR 35068, June 30, 1997). That AD
requires operators to install a new vernier control rod bolt and a new
main rudder power control unit servo valve.

C. NTSB Safety Recommendations

    Between 1995 and 1997, the NTSB issued 20 safety recommendations
dealing with the 737. Three of those (A-95-25, A-95-26, and A-95-27)
specifically addressed upgrades to the flight data recorders for all
737s. The NTSB stressed the importance of data on the flight control
surface positions, flight control inputs, and lateral acceleration. The
NTSB stated that with this data, it would have been able to identify
quickly any abnormal control surface movements and configuration
changes or autopilot status changes that may have been involved in the
loss of control of the 737s involved in the United and USAir accidents.
    While the NTSB acknowledged the design changes made to the rudder
system under the above ADs, the NTSB stated that these changes did not
eliminate the possibility of other potential failure modes and
malfunctions.

D. FAA Response: 1997 Regulations

    In response to the NTSB's safety recommendations, the FAA published
revisions to the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) requirements for
all airplanes (Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules; Final
Rule (62 FR 38362, July 17, 1997)). The revised DFDR regulations
prescribe the 88 parameters that must be recorded on DFDRs, with the
exact number of parameters required to be recorded determined by the
date of airplane manufacture. The number of parameters that must be
recorded range from 18 for a transport category airplane manufactured
on or before October 11, 1991, to 88 for airplanes manufactured after
August 19, 2002.

E. NTSB's 1999 Findings and Safety Recommendations

    On March 24, 1999, the NTSB issued the final report of its
investigation into the crash of USAir flight 427. The NTSB determined
the probable cause of the accident was a loss of control resulting from
the movement of the rudder surface position to its blowdown limit. The
NTSB stated that the 1997 regulations for upgrading DFDRs did not
address this problem because they do not require specific flight
control information to be recorded. Since several rudder-related events
have been associated with the 737's yaw damper system, the NTSB
concluded that it is important that yaw damper status, yaw damper
command, standby rudder status, and control wheel, control column, and
rudder pedal forces be recorded on all 737s.
    On April 16, 1999, the NTSB sent two recommendations to the FAA on
recording these additional parameters on all 737 DFDRs (Nos. A-99-28
and A-99-29).

F. FAA Response: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 99-19)

    The FAA agreed with the intent of the two NTSB safety
recommendations and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No.
99-19) entitled ``Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations
for Boeing 737 Airplanes and for Part 125 Operators'' (64 FR 63140,
November 18, 1999) (NPRM). In this NPRM, we proposed:
     Requiring all 737s to record the parameters listed in
Sec.  121.344(a)(1) through (a)(22), (a)(88), plus three new
parameters: yaw damper status, yaw damper command and standby rudder
status (designated as (a)(89) through (a)(91)).
     Increasing the required sampling rate for the control
forces listed in current paragraph (a)(88) for 737s.
     Requiring all 737s equipped with a flight data acquisition
unit (FDAU) of any type as of July 16, 1996, or manufactured after July
16, 1996, to comply by August 18, 2000. For all 737s not equipped with
a FDAU of any type as of July 16, 1996, we proposed a compliance date
of August 20, 2001.

G. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Comments

    We received 17 comments on the NPRM. Only one commenter supported
the proposed rule as published. The other commenters generally
supported the intent of the proposed rule, but expressed concern about
items such as:
     The proposed time frame for compliance,
     The availability of installation instructions,
     The lack of parts, and
     The likelihood of considerable airplane out-of-service
time.

H. Significant Events After Publication of the NPRM

    Several events occurred after publication of the NPRM that might
have affected the applicability of a final rule:
     Boeing began its 737 Rudder System Enhancement Program
(RSEP), which Boeing claimed would make the 737 rudder system
functionally equivalent to the 3-actuator system found on its 757 and
767 model airplanes.
     The 737 Engineering Test and Evaluation Board (ETEB) was
formed in May 1999 to conduct a failure analysis of the rudder
actuation control system of the 737. The ETEB issued its final report
in July 2000.
     On October 7, 2002, the FAA published AD 2002-20-07 (and
later revisions) that requires the installation of a new rudder control
system (and accompanying changes to nearby systems) (67 FR 62341). This
AD gives all 737 operators six years to install a new rudder control
system. Compliance is due by November 12, 2008.
     Boeing began installing the same newly designed rudder
control system on all 737s manufactured after January 2003.
     Boeing began installing the equipment necessary to record
the proposed parameters on all 737s it manufactured beginning in July
2000.

I. Need for an SNPRM

    Following the publication of the rudder system AD, we began to
draft a final rule that included the additional flight recorder
parameters. We soon realized that the number of 737s to which the final
rule would apply--those with the original rudder system--would be
shrinking at a constant pace as these rudder control systems were
replaced. By the 2008 compliance date for the rudder system AD, no 737s
in the U.S. fleet would have the original rudder system. That system
had been the original target for the addition of flight data sensors.
    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in
2006 (Notice No. 06-12; Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder
Regulations for Boeing 737 Airplanes and for Part 125 Operators; 71 FR
52382, September 5, 2006) to address the changed circumstances
introduced by the events that occurred after publication of the NPRM.
The SNPRM also proposed a compliance time that was the same as the
rudder system AD (November 12, 2008). We requested comment on this
change in applicability and sought updated economic information on
installing the proposed equipment.

II. Comments to SNPRM

A. Summary

    The FAA received seven comments in response to the SNPRM. The NTSB,
the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and one individual commenter
expressed support for the proposed rule. The ALPA recognized the impact
of the cost

of the proposed rule and encouraged the FAA to work with the
manufacturer to develop a cost-effective rudder force measurement
system. While the NTSB agreed with the proposal, it did not agree that
the current means for recording rudder pedal force provides adequate
data.
    Boeing, the Air Transport Association (ATA) and AirTran Airways
asked the FAA to either abandon the proposed rulemaking or, at a
minimum, remove the retrofit requirement for the 737-100/-200/-300/-
400/-500 series airplanes.
    US Airways provided information regarding its 737 fleet composition
and costs in response to our requests in the SNPRM.

B. Airplane Age and Applicability

    Several commenters noted a distinct difference between newer and
older fleets of 737s. The older 737 fleet includes many types of data
recording systems and installation variations. These commenters
generally concluded that compliance with the rule as proposed would
result in significant costs for new equipment and software
modifications for older models of the 737, plus supplemental type
certificates for an unknown number of variations.
1. Boeing Comments on Next-Generation 737s (-600/-700/-800/-900)
    Boeing Next-Generation 737s have been manufactured since January
1997. For those 737s with line numbers 1 through 129, (manufactured
between January 1997 and September 1998), Boeing stated that the flight
recorder requirements of the SNPRM could be met with the installation
of modifications described in two service bulletins:
     Boeing Service Bulletin 737-31-1124 describes the
installation of the rudder pedal force transducer that is required for
compliance with parameter 88 (all cockpit flight control forces). It
would cost an average of $10,285 an airplane to complete this
installation.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 737-31-1170, which addresses
parameter 91 (standby rudder valve status), includes instructions for
additional wiring and would require new digital flight data acquisition
unit (DFDAU) software. Further, six models of Teledyne DFDAUs would
need to be replaced. On average, it would cost $35,000 an airplane to
complete this Boeing Service Bulletin.
    Thus, the total cost for a Next-Generation 737 to complete both
Boeing Service Bulletins would be $45,285.
    Boeing stated that Next-Generation 737s with line numbers between
130 and 621 (manufactured between October 1998 and July 2000) could
comply with the requirements of the SNPRM with the installation of
Service Bulletin 737-31-1170, described above. The estimated cost of
installation of these modifications is $35,000 per airplane.
    Other than the rewiring, software changes and some DFDAU
replacement, no other equipment is required for older Next-Generation
737s to meet the proposed requirements.
    Boeing stated that Next-Generation 737s with line numbers 622 and
higher (manufactured beginning in July 2000) were designed to comply
with ``the intent of the SNPRM.'' For these 737s, there is no cost
associated with recording the proposed parameters other than the
minimal costs for operators to adopt and maintain them as part of the
flight data recording system.
2. Boeing Comments on Older 737s (-100/-200/-300/-400/-500)
    In contrast to the minimal changes required for newer airplanes,
Boeing submitted data showing that older 737s might require a
significant amount of new equipment. This includes a DFDAU, digital
flight data recorder, engine accessory unit, flight control computer,
yaw damper coupler replacement and software modification to meet the
proposed SNPRM requirements. Boeing also indicated its concern for
possible collateral damage to existing FDR wiring in the introduction
of a DFDAU and the extensive wiring modifications that would be
necessary on these older 737s. We calculate that it would cost an
average of $160,000 to meet the SNPRM's requirements for those older
737s that have a DFDAU and $425,000 for those that do not.
3. Rudder Modification Operational History (ADs 97-14-03 and 2002-20-
07)
    In the SNPRM, we noted that the FAA possessed limited historical
data on the function and reliability of the enhanced rudder that
resulted from Boeing's RSEP program and the rudder system AD. In its
comment, the ATA estimated that, since 1999, the worldwide 737 fleet
has accumulated approximately 74 million flight hours with no reported
rudder control events. The ATA used 1999 as the comparison date because
it coincides with the compliance date for the AD requiring
modifications to the yaw damper (AD 97-14-03) and the implementation of
the rudder modifications. For comparison, there were nine rudder
control events (two accidents and seven incidents) between 1991 and
1999 covering approximately 57 million flight hours.
    Boeing stated that it is not aware of any data or service
experience that suggests the modified rudder system is anything other
than safe.
    Boeing stated that the modified 737 rudder system (installed
pursuant to the AD or at manufacture) should not be treated any
differently than any other rudder system.
    The ATA estimated that since the rudder system AD was adopted in
2002, approximately one-third of the 20 million hours accumulated by
U.S.-registered 737s were on airplanes with the new rudder system
installed.
4. Conclusion
    Based on the comments to the SNPRM, we re-evaluated the composition
of the 737 fleet to determine whether we were justified in mandating
additional flight recorder equipment for all 737s. We have determined
that the costs of retrofitting older 737s with the equipment necessary
to comply with the SNPRM requirements is excessive, and does not result
in benefits that justify those costs. The details of these costs are
provided in the regulatory evaluation section later in this document.
    Data presented by the commenters led to our conclusion to limit the
applicability of this rule to 737s manufactured after August 18, 2000.
As indicated by Boeing, these airplanes were equipped at manufacture
with the additional parameters and they have been recorded by the
operators since delivery. We chose that date so as not to introduce yet
another date into the existing flight data recorder regulations that
were adopted in 1997. Several of the upgrades proposed in that
regulation were required for all aircraft manufactured after that date.
Adoption of this date for manufacture means that all of the 737s
required by this rule to record the additional parameters have been
capable of doing so since manufacture.
    This final rule requires all 737s manufactured after August 18,
2000 to record the three additional flight recorder parameters as
proposed. Mandating the recording of these parameters will ensure that
the data will continue to be collected and periodically checked to
verify that the data are complete and accurate.

C. Cost Impact

    In response to our request for additional data on compliance costs,
the ATA estimated it would cost $300 million for its members to comply
with the SNPRM. The ATA estimated that its members operate about 75
percent of the U.S. fleet of 737s. The equivalent cost

estimated by the FAA was $130 million in 2003 dollars (which is $143
million in 2006 dollars). The ATA noted that one third of this $157
million dollar difference ($48 million) is due to differences in
equipment and labor costs while two thirds of this difference ($109
million) is due to differences in estimates for out-of-service losses.
    As the ATA equipment and labor costs are based on the most current
information, we are using its data for our cost estimates of
alternatives to the final rule.
    However, as we have noted in several previous rulemakings, we
evaluate the loss from out-of-service time to the aviation system--not
to an individual operator. There would be minimal losses to the
aviation system when Airline A takes an airplane out of service and its
potential customers book on Airline B because the net revenue loss to
Airline A is largely offset by the net revenue gain by Airline B. As a
result, using net operating revenue losses for an airline without
accounting for the net operating revenue gains for other airlines would
overestimate the losses to the aviation system from out-of-service
time. A more significant loss to the aviation system would arise if
some potential customers decide not to fly because Airline A could not
provide the service. There would also be a consumer surplus loss if the
Airline B option were a second-best solution to the Airline A option
(either due to a higher ticket price or due to a less convenient flight
time) for any consumer. Based on this evaluation, we continue to use
the lease rate (the daily cost of leasing a similarly sized airplane)
as a proxy for the aviation system loss due to an out-of-service day.

D. Compliance Period Proposed in SNPRM

    For those 737s manufactured before August 19, 2000, the ATA stated
that we should extend the proposed compliance period to five years
after the projected availability of service instructions and parts. In
view of the time it would take to adopt the proposed rule and the
proposed compliance period, the ATA noted that operators would have
between 12 and 18 months after the rule's publication to retrofit their
737s under the proposed compliance period. The ATA argued that this
period would prove wholly incompatible with the time required to
develop and gain approval for the estimated 21 supplemental type
certificates (STCs) that would be required to address the 815
applicable airplanes of ATA members, for producing retrofit kits, and
for subsequently modifying the 815 airplanes during scheduled
maintenance visits.
    Boeing estimated that a minimum of three years would be required
for potential suppliers to develop methods of compliance with the rule.
After this time period, operators would need time to incorporate the
change in a scheduled manner. Boeing recommended that we consider
mandating an operational compliance starting three years after the rule
becomes effective to accommodate supplier development of methods of
compliance. In the case of an inability of suppliers to develop an
appropriate method of compliance, the operator compliance period would
need to be extended proportionally.
    As indicated above, there are no retrofit requirements associated
with this final rule, so there is no need for an adjusted compliance
time. Operators may incur costs in adding the new parameters to those
required to be recorded, but the impact is estimated to be minimal.
This final rule only affects Boeing 737 series airplanes manufactured
after August 18, 2000.
    The rudder system modifications required by various ADs apparently
have rectified the rudder hardover issues of the 1990s. There are no
remaining significant safety factors that would effectively be
addressed by requiring an expensive retrofit of the older 737 fleet
with further rudder monitoring equipment that does not affect its
function.
    In addition, cost estimates provided by ATA and Boeing indicate
that our estimates of the cost of retrofit were understated. We also
underestimated the time that would be required for such retrofits
without a significant disruption of normal maintenance cycles. We also
determined that if there were a sufficient length of time given to
comply, many of the affected aircraft would be retired from the fleet,
or that this retrofit would force retirement of the airplanes because
of the costs of compliance. Accordingly, we are unable to justify the
costs required to make older 737s comply with the requirements proposed
in the SNPRM.
    The data also allowed us to determine that there is only minimal
impact on requiring the additional parameters be recorded on those
airplanes already equipped to do so. We agree with Boeing and the ATA
that more information from the DFDRs helps speed investigations, and it
is logical to take advantage of this technology that is already
installed and collect this information. We have found that there will
be only minimal impact on operators to require that this additional
information be recorded.
    Since we have changed the applicability of this final rule, we have
also changed the compliance time. For 737s manufactured after August
18, 2000, compliance with the recording requirements is required two
years after the effective date of this rule.

E. Discussion of Retrofit Comments

    Since the proposed retrofit modifications have not been adopted in
this final rule, comments regarding specific provisions are no longer
relevant and are not being addressed in this document.

F. Recording Rudder Pedal Force

    The SNPRM included significant discussion of the FAA's decision not
to implement modifications to 737s to record the force applied to
individual rudder pedals. The ALPA, the ATA and the NTSB again
disagreed that the current means for recording rudder pedal force (a
single midstream transducer that meets the requirements of parameter
88) is adequate, and provided the same support they used in response to
the NPRM.
    Our position on this issue has not changed. The 737 rudder control
force parameter differentiates a rudder input from the flight deck as
opposed to input from rudder trim, yaw damper, or auto pilot. As we
found previously, it would require significant airplane redesign and
retrofit cost to install sensors at each rudder pedal location. We have
no basis for concluding that such a retrofit would be cost beneficial
when the costs themselves cannot readily be estimated without a
significant investment of time and energy. Nor have we been presented
with any information that the difference in information obtained after
such a modification would be critical to accident investigation, or
even relevant to the original issue of uncommanded rudder hardover. We
received no new information in these comments on the cost of such a
modification. We have once again concluded that our information on
estimated costs falls short of the legal requirements for imposing such
a cost on operators and the manufacturer, especially without a
definitive benefit.

G. Error in the SNPRM

    The ATA noted that proposed Appendices M and E specify a resolution
for parameter 88 of ``0.2% of full range.'' This differs from the
existing requirement of 0.3% of full range and should be corrected.
    The proposed change to Appendices M and E were in error. In the
final rule, the resolution for parameter 88 in these Appendices is
``0.3% of full range.''

H. Change to Part 125 Deviation Authority

    Separate from the requirements for 737s, the FAA proposed that
airplanes operating under deviation authority from part 125 must comply
with the flight data recorder requirements of part 125 for the aircraft
being operated. The FAA specified that this deviation requirement would
apply to all aircraft, not only the 737. The FAA specifically sought
comments on why the flight data recorder requirements of part 125
should not be made applicable to aircraft operated under deviation
authority. In addition, the FAA sought comments from affected persons
operating aircraft under deviation authority from part 125 concerning
the proposed compliance schedule. We received no comments in response
to the NPRM request. We included the same provision in the SNPRM
published in 2006 and again received no comments.
    Accordingly, the changes to part 91, applicable to part 125
airplanes operated under deviation authority, and the changes to part
125 are adopted as proposed. Three years after the effective date of
this rule, deviations to the flight recorder requirements of part 125
will no longer be granted, and any existing deviations to those
requirements will expire on that date. Operators holding deviations
from the flight recorder requirements of part 125 are advised to begin
planning for this change. We consider the three year notice of this
operational change to be sufficient and will not consider exemption
requests to continue operation without the required digital flight data
recorder system after that time.

I. Paragraph Designations

    The paragraph and footnote designations in the original and
supplemental proposed rules have been used in other FAA rulemakings.
Accordingly, the designations adopted here have been updated to use the
next available paragraph and footnote numbers, as applicable.

III. 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. This final rule contains new
information collection requirements. On September 19, 2008, the
Department of Transportation (Department) published a Notice of Intent
To Request Approval From the Office of Management and Budget of a New
Information Collection Activity, Request for Comments in the Federal
Register (73 FR 54448). In that notice, the Department requested
comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will have practical utility; the
accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed
information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. The comment period for the notice ended on November 18,
2008.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements associated
with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its
review. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.

IV. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, FAA policy is 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 no differences with these regulations.

V. 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 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 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 rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
    This rule requires that all 737s manufactured after August 18,
2000, record the parameters numbered 89, 90, and 91 in Appendix M of
part 121, and Appendix E of part 125. Boeing reported that it has
equipped each 737 manufactured after June 2000 with the equipment
needed to record these parameters. Thus, the rule requirements will
impose minimal costs on operators of these newer 737s.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this 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.

Aviation Industry Affected

    This rule applies to the operators of 737s manufactured after
August 18, 2000.

Benefit and Cost Baseline

    The baseline for determining this rule's benefits and costs is the
current DFDR systems found on each 737 manufactured after August 18,
2000.

Costs

    Boeing reported that all of the 737s to which the rule will apply
have been manufactured with the capability to record these flight data
parameters.

There are minimal operating costs from recording 91 flight data
parameters rather than the 88 flight data parameters. The only cost of
compliance will be the minimal cost for the operator to notify the FAA
that its airplane DFDR systems are, in fact, recording these parameters
as required, and to maintain the entire data set as part of its DFDR
record.

Benefits

    The primary benefit from this rule is to make flight data
parameters already recorded by the affected airplanes' DFDR systems
available to accident investigators. As previously noted, Boeing and
the ATA agreed that more information provided by the DFDR helps speed
investigations. We concur with their determinations and have
incorporated them into a final rule in order to ensure that all
affected existing and future 737 DFDR systems continue to record these
flight data parameters.

Benefit Cost Analysis

    Boeing had already implicitly determined that the benefits from
recording these flight data parameters on its 737s outweigh its costs
when it began installing the necessary equipment in its 737s beginning
in July 2000. Accordingly, there are minimal operating and maintenance
costs for operators of these existing and future 737s associated with
this rule. The additional flight data parameters may provide important
information to accident investigators. Consequently, we determined that
the benefits from requiring these flight data parameters to be recorded
are greater than the costs.

Economic Analyses of Alternatives to This Rule

    We evaluated several alternatives to this rule that involve
retrofitting 737s. These alternatives were selected on the basis of the
equipment necessary for those airplanes' FDR systems to meet the final
rule requirements if they were applied to those airplanes.
    For the purposes of this analysis, there are three 737 categories.
The first category includes the currently manufactured 737 models: The
737-600, 737-700, 737-800, and 737-900 series (plus any future 737
series). These were first delivered in January of 1997 and are commonly
referred to as Next-Generation 737s (737-NG).
    The second category includes the 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500
series, which are out of production. These were first delivered in 1984
with the last one delivered to a U.S. operator in early 1999. These
models are commonly referred to as the Classic 737s.
    The third category includes the 737-200 series, which is also out
of production. These were first delivered in 1968 with the last one
delivered to a U.S. operator in early 1988.
    Boeing sequentially numbers each of its 737-NGs based on the date
when airplane assembly began. The first 737-NG, delivered in 1997, was
designated Line Number 1, with subsequent production numbered
sequentially. The first 621 737-NGs do not record flight data
parameters 89, 90, and 91. All 737-NGs beginning with Line Number 622,
delivered in July 2000, have a DFDR system that meets the requirements
of this rule.
    Of the first 621 737-NGs that do not record parameters 89, 90, and
91, 242 were sold to U.S. operators. If the final rule were to apply to
these airplanes, their operators would need to complete Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-31-1170 on 240 of them (2 of these airplanes are already
in compliance). The ATA commented that completing the Service Bulletin
would require 100 labor hours to schedule, install, inspect, etc. At a
labor rate of $80 for an airline mechanic, the labor cost would be
$8,000 an airplane. The ATA also estimated that the equipment costs
would be $5,000. In the Service Bulletin, Boeing estimated that
installing the equipment would require the airplane to be out of
service for 35 hours. Even if the installation were performed during an
overnight check, it would require an additional day of out-of-service
time, at a (lease rate) cost to the aviation industry of $7,000 for a
newer airplane. This calculation is based on the assumption that the
operator would be allowed sufficient time to schedule this retrofit
during an overnight check. Finally, each DFDAU would need to be either
reprogrammed (the most common occurrence) or replaced (for 737s with
one of six Teledyne DFDAU models). We do not know and Boeing was unable
to tell us the number of airplanes that may have one of the Teledyne
DFDAUs. Based on the general data in the ATA comment, it would cost
$50,000 for each airplane that requires a new DFDAU and $10,000 for
each airplane if the DFDAU can be reprogrammed. From these data we
estimated an average cost of $15,000 for each 737-NG. At a cost of
$35,000 to complete Service Bulletin 737-31-1170 on one 737-NG, we
estimate a total cost of $8,400,000 for all 240 737-NGs to comply with
the final rule.
    In addition, Boeing stated that operators of 737-NG Line Numbers 1
through 129 would also need to complete Boeing Service Bulletin 737-31-
1124 to meet the rule requirements. Of these 129 airplanes, 55 were
sold to U.S. operators. Two of these 55 airplanes already have the
equipment required under Service Bulletin 737-31-1124 installed,
leaving 53 airplanes that would need equipment upgrades. Completing
that service bulletin would require 12 labor hours to schedule,
install, inspect, etc. At a labor rate of $80 for an airline mechanic,
the labor cost would be $960 for each airplane. The equipment costs
(wiring, sensors, etc.) would be $2,325. In its service bulletin,
Boeing estimated that installing the equipment would require the
airplane to be out of service for 10 hours. If the work were performed
during an overnight check in conjunction with completing Service
Bulletin 737-31-1170, one further day of out-of-service time (for a
total of two out-of-service days) would be needed at a cost of $7,000.
Thus, it would cost $10,285 to complete Service Bulletin 737-31-1124
for each 737-NG, resulting in a total cost of $545,105 for all 53 NG
airplanes.
    In summary, each of the older 53 737-NGs would incur a cost of
$45,285 to complete Boeing Service Bulletins 737-31-1170 and 737-31-
1124. The total cost of compliance for these 53 737-NGs would be
$2,400,105. Each of the remaining newer 187 737-NGs would incur a cost
of $35,000 to complete Boeing Service Bulletin 737-31-1170. The total
cost for these 187 737-NGs would be $6,545,000. The total cost for all
240 737-NGs would be $8,945,105.
    There were 641 U.S.-registered Classic 737s as of January 1, 2007.
Using a 30 year life expectancy for a 737, all of these airplanes would
be in operation on January 1, 2009. For purposes of this analysis,
these U.S.-registered Classic 737s were divided into two categories:
Those that have DFDAUs and those that do not.
    The ATA reported that of these 641 airplanes, 174 have either no
FDAU or an analog FDAU. If the final rule were to apply to these
airplanes, the operator would need to install a DFDAU, replace the FDR,
reprogram the flight control computer, and install sensors and wiring.
The ATA reported that it would cost $385,000 in equipment and labor for
each of these airplanes to be brought into compliance with the final
rule. Each airplane would be out-of-service for 10 days. As these are
older 737s, the loss to the aviation industry for a day out of service
would be $4,000, for a total out-of-service cost of $40,000. The cost
per airplane would be $425,000. Thus, the total cost for these 174
U.S.-registered 737 Classic airplanes would be $73,950,000.

    For the remaining 467 U.S.-registered Classic 737s that have a
DFDAU, the ATA reported that the equipment and labor cost would be
$140,000 per airplane and the airplane would be out-of-service for 4
days. As these airplanes are newer, the loss to the aviation industry
for a day out of service would be $5,000, for a total out-of-service
cost of $20,000. The cost per airplane would be $160,000. Thus, the
total cost for these 467 U.S.-registered Classic 737s would be
$74,720,000.
    Finally, we estimate that there are 101 U.S.-registered 737-200s
manufactured without a FDAU that will be in operation on January 1,
2009. The ATA reported that the equipment and labor costs for a 737-200
would be $385,000 (the same as for a Classic 737 that does not have a
DFDAU). As the 737-200s are smaller than the Classic 737s, the loss to
the aviation industry for a day out of service would be $3,000, for a
total loss of $30,000 for the ten days out of service. The cost per
airplane would be $415,000. Thus, the total cost for these 101 N-
Registered 737-200s would be $41,915,000.
    These results are summarized in Table 1.

                  Table 1--Costs To Retrofit 737s To Comply With Alternatives to the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of                       Total cost  (in
                           Retrofit                             airplanes   Cost per airplane     millions $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 737-NGs Starting with Line Number 130.....................          187            $35,000              6.545
On 737-NGs Line Numbers 1-129................................           53             45,285              2.400
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
On All 737-NGs...............................................          240  .................              8.945
On Classic 737s that have a DFDAU............................          467            160,000             74.720
On Classic 737s that do not have a DFDAU.....................          174            425,000             73.950
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
On All Classic 737s..........................................          641  .................            148.670
On All 737-200s..............................................          101            415,000             41.915
On All 737s..................................................          982  .................            199.530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Table 1, we evaluated the following options:
    1. Applying the rule to 737-NGs starting from Line Number 129.
    2. Applying the rule to all 737-NGs.
    3. Applying the rule to all 737s that have a DFDAU.
    4. Applying the rule to all 737-NGs and to all Classic 737s
    5. Applying the rule to all 737s.
    As shown in Table 1, Alternative one would cost $6.545 million,
Alternative 2 would cost $8.945 million, Alternative 3 would cost
$83.665 million, Alternative 4 would cost $157.615 million, and
Alternative 5 would cost $199.530 million.
    Thus, the older the airplane, the more it would cost to comply with
this rule. In addition, the older the airplane, the fewer the remaining
flight hours of data that would be recorded. In particular, we expect
no 737-200s or 737-300s to be in scheduled service by 2012.
Consequently, little safety data would be obtained from these
airplanes. As a result, the most expensive retrofits (about $415,000 to
$425,000 an airplane) would be on airplanes that have a limited service
life after the retrofit.
    Moreover, the new rudder control system will be installed on all
737s by November 2008. There have been no reports of uncommanded rudder
hardover on airplanes equipped with the new rudder control system and
other modifications required by AD. Accordingly, we concluded that
spending even the minimum of $35,000 to retrofit some newer 737s to
record the additional flight data parameters would not be worth the
limited potential benefits from this recording.

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.
    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.
    This rule requires that parameters already being recorded be
maintained as part of the regulatory flight data recorder requirements.
All 737s manufactured since July 2000 record flight data parameters 89,
90, and 91. Only one small entity has purchased new 737s since July
2000; Sun Country Airlines has purchased 6 of them, and all are in
compliance. As this rule imposes minimal incremental costs, the
expected outcome is only a minimal impact on any small entity that may
purchase a future 737.
    Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    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 impact of this final rule and has determined that it responds
to a domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to trade.

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
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) 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 equivalent of $100 million in CY 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2007 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is $136.1 million.
    The rule does not contain such a mandate.

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 Federal 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.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations 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. We have
determined that while intrastate operators of 737s in Alaska may be
affected (as are all 737 operators), any impact is minimal, and there
is no need to make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate
aviation 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 rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this rule 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 energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

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 amendment 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.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. 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).

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.609 by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.609  Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (k) An aircraft operated under this part under deviation authority
from part 125 of this chapter must comply with all of the applicable
flight data recorder requirements of part 125 applicable to the
aircraft, notwithstanding such deviation authority.

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

0
3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, 46301.

0
4. Amend Sec.  121.344 by removing the word ``and'' after paragraph
(a)(87); by removing the period after paragraph (a)(88) and adding a
semicolon in its place; by adding new paragraphs (a)(89), (90), and
(91), (e)(3) and (n); and by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  121.344  Digital flight data recorders for transport category
airplanes.

    (a) * * *
    (89) Yaw damper status;

    (90) Yaw damper command; and
    (91) Standby rudder valve status.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes must also comply with
the requirements of paragraph (n) of this section, as applicable.
    (f) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
manufactured after August 19, 2002--
    (1) The parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix M to this
part.
    (2) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) of this
section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes must also comply with the
requirements of paragraph (n) of this section.
* * * * *
    (n) In addition to all other applicable requirements of this
section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes manufactured after August 18,
2000 must record the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(88) through
(a)(91) of this section within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and
recording intervals specified in Appendix M to this part. Compliance
with this paragraph is required no later than February 2, 2011.

0
5. Amend Appendix M to part 121 by revising item 88 and adding items 89
through 91 and footnote 19 to read as follows:

Appendix M to Part 121--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Seconds
                                                                  Accuracy  (sensor         per
              Parameter                        Range                    input)           sampling          Resolution                  Remarks
                                                                                interval
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
88. All cockpit flight control input  Full range.............  5%.........         1    0.3% of full range.....  For fly-by-wire flight
 forces (control wheel, control       Control wheel 70 lbs.                                                                          flight control surface
                                      Control column 85 lbs.                                                                          the displacement of the
                                      Rudder pedal 165 lbs.                                                                         it is not necessary to
                                                                                record this parameter. For
                                                                                airplanes that have a
                                                                                flight control break away
                                                                                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.
89. Yaw damper status...............  Discrete (on/off)......  .......................         0.5                           ...........................
90. Yaw damper command..............  Full range.............  As installed...........         0.5  1% of full range.......
91. Standby rudder valve status.....  Discrete...............  .......................         0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\19\ For 737 model airplanes manufactured between August 19, 2000 and April 6, 2010: the seconds per sampling interval is 0.5 per control input; the
  remarks regarding the sampling rate do not apply; a single control wheel force transducer installed on the left cable control is acceptable provided
  the left and right control wheel positions also are recorded.

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE

0
6. 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.
0
7. Amend Sec.  125.3 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  125.3  Deviation authority.

* * * * *
    (d) After February 2, 2012, no deviation authority from the flight
data recorder requirements of this part will be granted. Any previously
issued deviation from the flight data recorder requirements of this
part is no longer valid.

0
8. Amend Sec.  125.226 by removing the word ``and'' after paragraph
(a)(87); by removing the period after paragraph (a)(88) and adding a
semicolon in its place; by adding new paragraphs (a)(89), (90), and
(91), (e)(3), and (n); and by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  125.226  Digital flight data recorders.

    (a) * * *
    (89) Yaw damper status;
    (90) Yaw damper command; and
    (91) Standby rudder valve status.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes must also comply with
the requirements of paragraph (n) of this section, as applicable.
    (f) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes
manufactured after August 19, 2002--
    (1) The parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88) of
this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies,
resolutions, and recording intervals specified in appendix M to this
part.
    (2) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) of this
section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes must also comply with the
requirements of paragraph (n) of this section.
* * * * *
    (n) In addition to all other applicable requirements of this
section, all Boeing 737 model airplanes manufactured after August 18,
2000, must record the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(88) through
(a)(91) of this section within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and

recording intervals specified in Appendix M to this part. Compliance
with this paragraph is required no later than February 2, 2011.

0
9. Amend Appendix E to part 125 by revising item 88, and adding items
89 through 91 and footnote 19 to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 125--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Seconds
                                                                                per
              Parameter                        Range           Accuracy (sensor input)   sampling          Resolution                  Remarks
                                                                                interval
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
88. All cockpit flight control input  Full range               5%.........         1    0.3% of full range.....  For fly-by-wire flight
 forces (control wheel, control       Control wheel 70 lbs.                                                                          flight control surface
                                      Control column 85 lbs.                                                                          the displacement of the
                                      Rudder pedal 165 lbs.                                                                         it is not necessary to
                                                                                record this parameter. For
                                                                                airplanes that have a
                                                                                flight control break away
                                                                                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.
89. Yaw damper status...............  Discrete (on/off)......  .......................         0.5
90. Yaw damper command..............  Full range.............  As installed...........         0.5  1% of full range.......
91. Standby rudder valve status.....  Discrete...............  .......................         0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\19\ For all 737 model airplanes manufactured between August 19, 2000, and April 6, 2010: The seconds per sampling interval is 0.5 per control input;
  the remarks regarding the sampling rate do not apply; a single control wheel force transducer installed on the left cable control is acceptable
  provided the left and right control wheel positions also are recorded.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-28562 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55047-55048]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73021; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the New York Stock Exchange LLC Price List To Provide That the
Monthly DMM Credit for Certain Securities Be Prorated to the Number of
Trading Days in a Month That a Security Is Assigned to a DMM

September 9, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 25, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to provide that the
monthly DMM credit for certain securities will be prorated to the
number of trading days in a month that a security is assigned to a DMM.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to provide that the
monthly DMM credit for certain securities will be prorated to the
number of trading days in a month that a security is assigned to a DMM.
    On March 2, 2014, the Exchange adopted a new monthly credit for
DMMs for each security that has a consolidated average daily volume
(``ADV'') of less than 250,000 shares during the billing month in any
month in which the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting
Requirement.\4\ The flat dollar credit supplements the DMM credit in
securities that do not trade actively and is applicable to all
Exchange-listed securities regardless of price.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The DMM meets the ``Less Active Securities Quoting
Requirement'' when a security has a consolidated ADV of less than
1,000,000 shares per month in the previous month and a stock price
of $1.00 or more, and the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable
security at least 15% of the time in the applicable month.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71684 (March 11,
2014), 79 FR 14758 (March 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to revise the Price List to provide that the
rebate would be prorated to the number of trading days in a month that
a stock is assigned to a DMM. The Exchange believes it is appropriate
to prorate the rebate to the number of trading days that a stock is
assigned to a DMM to ensure that the monthly rebate has a nexus to the
time for which a DMM has affirmative obligations for that stock
pursuant to Rule 104. For example, if a stock is assigned to more than
one DMM unit within a month, such as when a stock is transferred
temporarily from one DMM to another and then returned to the original
DMM, the Exchange does not believe that it is appropriate that both
DMMs that were assigned that stock in a given month should both be
eligible for the full monthly rebate. Similarly, if a stock begins
trading at the Exchange mid-month, such as because of an initial public
offering or transfer of a listed security from another exchange, the
Exchange does not believe

it is appropriate for a DMM to receive a full monthly credit. For
example, in a month with 20 trading days, assume a less active security
transfers from DMM 1 to DMM 2 after the 15th trading day. The DMM
monthly rebate would be prorated for the two DMM firms as follows: DMM
1 would be rebated $150 (15 assigned trading days/20 trading days in
the month x $200) and DMM 2 would be rebated $50 (5 assigned trading
days/20 trading days in the month x $200). The Exchange believes that
prorating the rebate for the number of trading days in a month that a
stock is assigned to a DMM will ensure that the DMM with responsibility
for the stock receives the appropriate rebate for the responsibilities
performed for that symbol in the month.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed prorating of the DMM
monthly rebate is reasonable because it would provide a nexus between
the rebate paid to a DMM and the number of days that a DMM has been
assigned a stock. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed
prorating of the monthly DMM rebate is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it directly ties the monthly rebate to the
number of trading days for which a DMM has regulatory responsibility
for a stock pursuant to Rule 104. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed prorating is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all DMMs would be treated the same.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would not burden competition because it would be applicable to
DMMs only and ensures that an existing rebate is associated more
closely with when a DMM is assigned a stock, which may be shorter than
a full month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and
rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For these reasons,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects the
competitive environment and is therefore consistent with the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for Web site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal
office and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-47 and should be
submitted on or before October 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21867 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P