Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations for Boeing 737 Airplanes and for All Part 125 Airplanes, 73171-73180 [E8-28562]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 2, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73171-73180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28562]


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

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 (202) 385-4643; facsimile (202) 385-
4651; e-mail brian.verna@faa.gov. 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 (202) 267-3073; facsimile (202) 267-
7971; e-mail: karen.petronis@faa.gov.

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

[[Page 73172]]

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

[[Page 73173]]

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

[[Page 73174]]

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.''

[[Page 73175]]

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.

[[Page 73176]]

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.

[[Page 73177]]

    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.

[[Page 73178]]

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 (https://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the 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 
https://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 https://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;

[[Page 73179]]

    (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

[[Page 73180]]

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.....  Fo