[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6088-6094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2358]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2010-1175; Notice No. 11-02]
RIN 2120-AJ83
Installed Systems and Equipment for Use by the Flightcrew
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend design
requirements in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes to minimize the occurrence of design-related flightcrew
errors. The new design requirements would enable a flightcrew to detect
and manage their errors when the errors occur. Adopting this proposal
would eliminate regulatory differences between the airworthiness
standards of the United States (U.S.) and those of the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) without affecting current industry design
practices.
DATES: Send your comments on or before April 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
1175 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
[[Page 6089]]
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule, contact Loran Haworth, Airplane and Flightcrew
Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 227-1133; facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail
[email protected].
For legal questions about this proposed rule, contact Doug
Anderson, FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel (ANM-7), 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166;
facsimile 425-227-1007; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble, under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.
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, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It
prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of
transport category airplanes.
Background
Airworthiness standards for type certification of transport
category airplanes for products certified in the U.S. are in part 25.
EASA's Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes (CS-25) are
the corresponding airworthiness standards for products certified in
Europe. While part 25 and CS-25 are similar, they differ in several
respects.
The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
through its Human Factors Harmonization Working Group to review
existing regulations and recommend measures to address the contribution
of design and certification of transport category airplane flight decks
to flight crew error. The ARAC submitted its recommendations to the FAA
in a report, Human Factors--Harmonization Working Group Final Report,
dated June 15, 2004. A copy of the report is in the docket for this
rulemaking. This proposed rule is a result of this harmonization
effort.
Managing Flightcrew Performance
There are several regulations that are designed to address
differing aspects of flight crew performance. Flightcrew capabilities
are carefully considered through--
(1) Airworthiness standards for the issuance of type certificates
for airplanes;
(2) Airplane operating requirements (part 121);
(3) Certification and operating requirements (part 119); and
(4) Requirements for issuing pilot certificates and ratings (part
61).
Taken together, these requirements provide a high degree of operating
safety in the air transportation system. These requirements take into
consideration equipment design, training, qualifications for pilot
certificates, airplane operations and procedures, and the interaction
of systems, equipment and personnel and how each contribute to
operating safely through risk management.
The proposed requirements in Sec. 25.1302 would augment existing
regulations with more explicit requirements for design attributes
related to managing and avoiding flight crew error. Design
characteristics can contribute to flight crew error.
EASA incorporated this rule in 2006 based on the ARAC
recommendations. U.S. and European airworthiness requirements are
unharmonized at the present time, and will continue to be unharmonized
if the FAA does not issue a final rule on this subject. The
requirements of these proposed standards are similar to those in the
current EASA CS 25.1302 (Amendment 25/3). Means of compliance are
intended to be identical.
Current Requirements
There are several regulations that apply to aspects of flight crew
performance. These regulations are listed and discussed in the ARAC
report, Human Factors--Harmonization Working Group Final Report, June
15, 2004, which is posted on the Web site http://www.regulations.gov
(in the same docket as this proposed rulemaking).
The proposed Sec. 25.1302 would augment these existing generally
applicable rules with more explicit requirements for design attributes
related to avoiding and managing flightcrew error. Other ways to avoid
and manage flightcrew error are regulated through requirements for
licensing and qualifying flightcrew members and aircraft operations.
Taken together, these complementary approaches provide a high degree of
safety.
This complementary approach to avoiding and managing flightcrew
error is important. It recognizes that equipment design, training,
qualifying through licensing, establishing correct operations and
procedures, all contribute to safety by avoiding or minimizing risk. An
appropriate balance is needed among them. There have been cases in the
past where design characteristics known to contribute to flightcrew
error were accepted, with the rationale that training or procedures
would mitigate that risk. We now know that such an approach may be
inappropriate. Conversely, it would also be inappropriate to require
equipment design to always provide complete risk avoidance or
mitigation, because such an approach may not be practicable in some
cases, and may even create new risks.
Therefore, a proper balance is needed among design approval
requirements in the minimum airworthiness standards of part 25 and
requirements for training/licensing/qualification, operations, and
procedures. We have developed the requirements proposed here with the
intent of achieving that balance.
General Discussion of the Proposal
Flightcrews contribute positively to the safety of the air
transportation system using their ability to assess complex situations
and make reasoned decisions. However, even trained, qualified, checked,
alert flightcrew members can make errors. Some errors may be influenced
by the design of airplane systems and their flightcrew interfaces.
Flightcrew errors that could impact safety are often detected and/or
mitigated in the normal course of events. However, accident analyses
have identified flightcrew performance and error as significant factors
in a majority of accidents involving transport category airplanes.
[[Page 6090]]
Accidents often result from a sequence, or combination, of
flightcrew errors and safety related events. The design of the flight
deck and other systems can influence flightcrew task performance and
may also affect the rate of occurrence and effects of flightcrew
errors.
Human error is generally characterized as a deviation from what is
considered correct in some context. In the hindsight of analysis of
accidents, incidents, or other events of interest, these deviations
might include: an inappropriate action, a difference from what is
expected in a procedure, a mistaken decision, a slip of the fingers in
typing, an omission of some kind, and many other examples.
Applicability and Scope
The introductory sentence of proposed Sec. 25.1302 states that the
provisions of the section apply to each item of installed equipment
intended for use by the flightcrew in operating the airplane from their
normally seated positions on the flight deck. An example of such
installed equipment would be a display that provides the flightcrew
with information enabling them to navigate the airplane.
As used in this section, the term ``flightcrew members'' is
intended to include any or all individuals comprising the minimum
flightcrew as determined for compliance with Sec. 25.1523. The phrase
``From their normally seated position'' means that, to use the
equipment addressed by this proposed rule, flightcrew members are
seated at their normal duty stations for operating the airplane. The
proposed rule would not apply to such items as certain circuit breakers
or maintenance controls intended for use by the maintenance crew or by
the flightcrew when the airplane is not being operated.
The proposal would require that installed equipment ``individually
and in combination with other such equipment'' must be designed so that
qualified flightcrew members who are trained and checked in its use can
safely perform their tasks associated with the intended function of the
installed equipment. The quoted phrase means that the applicant must
consider the use of the equipment in context with other installed
equipment to show compliance with the requirements of this proposal.
The installed equipment may not prevent other equipment from complying
with these requirements. As an example, applicants may not design a
display so that the information it provides is either inconsistent with
or conflicts with information from other installed equipment.
The provisions of this proposed rule presume that a qualified
flightcrew is trained and checked to use the installed equipment, as
required by the operational rules. If the applicant seeks a design
approval before a training program is accepted, the applicant should
document any novel, complex or highly integrated design features and
any different or new assumptions related to the design that have the
potential to affect training time or flightcrew procedures (for
example, flightcrew interpretation, response, or abilities).
The FAA envisions for the proposed requirement that equipment be
designed so the flightcrew can safely perform tasks associated with the
equipment's intended function. This requirement would apply for
operations in both normal and non-normal conditions. Tasks intended for
performance under non-normal conditions are generally those prescribed
by non-normal (including emergency) flightcrew procedures in the
airplane flight manual. The phrase ``safely perform their tasks''
describes one of the safety objectives of this proposed requirement.
The proposal requires the equipment be designed to enable the
flightcrew to perform their tasks with sufficient accuracy and in a
timely manner, without unduly interfering with other required tasks.
The phrase ``Tasks associated with its intended function'' would
include those tasks required to operate the equipment, such as entering
flight plan data into a flight management system, and tasks for which
the equipment's intended function provides support, such as setting
``bugs'' for minimum and critical speeds to support airspeed control by
the flightcrew.
Controls and Information
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(a) would require the applicant to
install appropriate controls and provide necessary information for any
flight deck equipment used by the flightcrew to accomplish tasks
associated with their intended function as identified in the first
paragraph of Sec. 25.1302. To show compliance, the applicant must
identify the tasks associated with the intended function of installed
equipment, and show that the controls for the equipment, and the
information provided for operation of the equipment, are adequate to
enable the flightcrew members to perform the identified tasks. The FAA
is proposing these requirements because they are not adequately
reflected in other parts of 14 CFR part 25 for the specific subject of
human factors.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(b) addresses requirements for flight
deck controls and information to ensure that the flightcrew can
accomplish their tasks. The intent is to ensure that the design of
control and information devices makes them usable by the flightcrew.
This requirement would reduce design-induced flightcrew errors by
imposing design requirements on the presentation of information on the
flight deck and on flight deck controls. Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) specify these design requirements.
Design requirements for information and controls are necessary to:
Properly support the flightcrew in doing their tasks.
Make available to the flightcrew appropriate, effective
means to carry out planned actions.
Enable the flightcrew to have appropriate feedback
information about the effects of their actions on the airplane.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(b)(1) specifically requires that
controls and information intended for the flightcrew must be provided
in a clear and unambiguous manner, at a resolution and precision
appropriate to the task. As applied to information, ``clear and
unambiguous'' means that it can be:
Perceived correctly (is legible).
Understood in the context of flightcrew tasks associated
with the intended functions of the equipment such that the flightcrew
can perform the associated tasks.
The proposed requirement that controls must be provided in a clear
and unambiguous manner means the crew must be able to correctly and
reliably identify the control by using control distinctiveness such as
control shape, color, and location. This requirement is separate from,
and in addition to, the requirement for control labeling in Sec.
25.1555(a). The proposed Sec. 25.1302(b)(1) also requires that the
information or control be provided, or operate, at a level of detail
and accuracy appropriate to accomplishing the task. Insufficient
resolution or precision would prevent the flightcrew from performing
the task adequately. On the other hand, excessive resolution could
result in poor readability or the implication that the task should be
carried out more precisely than is actually necessary, thus making the
task more difficult.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(b)(2) requires that controls and
information be accessible and usable by the flightcrew in a manner
consistent with the urgency, frequency, and duration of their tasks.
Controls used more frequently or urgently must be readily
[[Page 6091]]
accessed, or require fewer steps or actions to perform the task. Less
accessible controls may be acceptable if they are needed less
frequently or urgently. Controls used less frequently or urgently
should not interfere with those used more frequently or urgently.
Similarly, tasks requiring a longer time for interaction with the
system should not interfere with accessibility to information required
for urgent or frequent tasks.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(b)(3) requires that equipment must
present information advising the flightcrew of the effects of their
actions on the airplane or systems, if safe operation depends on their
awareness of those effects. The intent is that the flightcrew be aware
of system or airplane states resulting from their actions, and thus be
able to detect and correct their own errors. This subparagraph is
included because new technology enables new kinds of flightcrew
interfaces that previous requirements do not address.
Equipment Behavior
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(c) requires that installed equipment be
designed so that equipment behavior that is operationally relevant to
flightcrew tasks is:
Predictable and unambiguous.
Designed to enable the flightcrew to intervene in a manner
appropriate to the task (and intended function).
``Equipment behavior'' in the context of this proposal refers to
the function of the equipment as perceived by a flightcrew member.
Although improved flight deck technologies involving integrated and
complex information and control systems have increased safety and
performance, they have also introduced the need to ensure proper
interaction between the flightcrew and those systems. Service
experience has shown that some equipment behavior, especially behavior
of some automated systems, is very complex. Some system behavior is
dependent on logical states or mode transitions not well understood or
expected by the flightcrew. Such design characteristics can confuse the
flightcrew and have contributed to incidents and accidents.
``Operationally-relevant behavior'' is the combined effect of the
equipment's logic, controls, and displayed information on the
flightcrews' awareness or perception of the system's operation, which
affects the flightcrews' planning or operation of the system. The
intent here is to distinguish such system behavior from the functional
logic within the system design, much of which the flightcrew does not
know or need to know and which should be transparent to them.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(c)(1) requires that system behavior be
such that a qualified flightcrew can know what the system is doing and
why. It requires that operationally relevant system behavior be
``predictable and unambiguous.'' This means that a crew can retain
enough information about what their action, or a changing situation,
will cause the system to do under foreseeable circumstances so that
they can operate the system safely. One reason that system behavior
must be unambiguous is that crew actions may have different effects on
the airplane depending on its current state or operational
circumstances. For example, autopilot response to selection or arming
of a different mode can depend on which mode is currently active. In
such a case the autopilot must be designed to avoid ambiguity about the
result of possible flightcrew selections.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(c)(2) requires that the design enable
the flightcrew to determine a need for, choose, and take appropriate
action, or to change or alter an input to the system, in a manner
appropriate to the task, and to monitor the system and airplane
response to the action. For example, to respond appropriately to a new
Air Traffic Control (ATC) altitude clearance, the flightcrew needs
information about the active flight guidance and flight management
modes, what means are available to comply with the new ATC requirement
given the current airplane and system states, how to select those
means, and how to determine that the expected response is being
achieved.
Error Management
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(d) addresses the reality that even well-
trained, checked, proficient flightcrews using well-designed systems
will make errors. The proposal requires that equipment be designed to
enable the flightcrew to manage such errors. For the purpose of this
rule, errors ``resulting from flightcrew interaction with the
equipment'' are errors that are in some way attributable to, or related
to, design of the controls, behavior of the equipment, or information
presented. Examples of designs or information that could cause errors
are complex indications and controls that are inconsistent with each
other or with other systems on the flight deck. Another example is the
presentation of a procedure for the crew to follow that is inconsistent
with the design of the equipment. Such errors are considered to be
within the scope of this proposed requirement.
The proposed requirement that a design enable the flightcrew to
``manage errors'' means that the design meets the following criteria to
the extent practicable:
Flightcrew must be able to detect and/or recover from
errors resulting from their interaction with the equipment.
Effects of such flightcrew errors on the airplane
functions or capabilities must be evident to the flightcrew, and
continued safe flight and landing must be possible.
Flightcrew errors must be discouraged by switch guards,
interlocks, confirmation actions, or other effective means, and
Effects of errors with potential safety consequences must
be precluded by system logic or other aspects of system design that
will detect and correct such errors.
The requirement to manage errors applies to those errors that can
be reasonably expected in service from qualified, trained and checked
flightcrews. Errors ``reasonably expected in service'' include those
that have occurred in service in the past with similar or comparable
equipment. It also includes errors that can be predicted to occur based
on general experience and on knowledge of human performance
capabilities and limitations as they relate to use of the types of
controls, information, or system logic being assessed.
The proposed Sec. 25.1302(d) includes the following statement:
``This paragraph (d) does not apply to * * * skill-related errors
associated with manual control of the airplane.'' That statement means
to exclude errors resulting from flightcrew lack of proficiency in
controlling flight path and attitude with the primary roll, pitch, yaw,
and thrust controls. These issues are considered adequately addressed
by existing requirements, such as part 25 Subpart B and Sec.
25.671(a), which require that each control and control system operate
with the ease, smoothness, and positiveness appropriate to its
function. We do not intend that equipment design be required to
compensate for deficiencies in flightcrew training or experience. This
proposed rule assumes at least the minimum flightcrew requirements for
the intended operation, as discussed previously.
This proposal only concerns the management of errors resulting from
flightcrew decisions, acts or omissions that occur when they are
operating the airplane in ``good faith.'' Therefore, this paragraph
contains exceptions for actions that are intentionally taken with
[[Page 6092]]
malicious or purely contrary intent (that is, actions intended to have
incorrect or unsafe results); for actions arising from a crewmember's
substantial disregard for safety (that is, reckless conduct); and for
actions taken as a result of acts or threats of violence (for example,
actions taken under duress). It is unreasonable to expect that airplane
designers would be able to anticipate and prevent these types of
actions. The EASA regulation, CS-25.1302, allows applicants to assume
that the flightcrew is ``acting in good faith.'' While our proposed
Sec. 25.1302(d) replaces this term with a more detailed enumeration of
exceptions, our intent is the same, and the regulatory effect would be
harmonized.
On the other hand, pilots do occasionally take erroneous actions
that, while intentional, are not intended to have unsafe consequences;
that is, they are ``acting in good faith.'' An example of an
intentional error that might occur would be a situation where an alert
occurs, but the flightcrew does not perform the associated procedure
because they believe it to be a nuisance alert. In this situation Sec.
25.1302(d) requires the applicant to show that this error can be
detected and managed by the flightcrew.
Requiring errors to be manageable only ``to the extent
practicable'' addresses both economic and operational practicability.
We want to avoid imposing requirements without considering economic
feasibility and commensurate safety benefits. We also need to avoid
introducing into the design any error management features that would
inappropriately impede flightcrew actions or decisions in normal or
non-normal conditions. For example, we do not intend to require so many
guards or interlocks on the means to shut down an engine that the
flightcrew would be unable to do this reliably within the available
time. We do not intend to reduce the authority or means for the
flightcrew to intervene or carry out an action when it is their
responsibility to fly the airplane to the best of their abilities.
The scope of applicability of this material is limited to errors
for which there is a contribution from or relationship to design. Even
so, we expect Sec. 25.1302(d) to result in design changes that will
protect against other types of errors as well. One example might be the
use of an ``undo'' function that allows the flightcrew to back out of a
function once selected in certain designs.
Availability of Draft Advisory Circular
Because existing guidance does not specifically address the
requirements of this proposal, a draft advisory circular accompanies
this proposed rule and is posted on the FAA's draft document Web site,
on the Internet, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impact of the proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
The FAA has made a determination for this proposed rule.
The reasoning for this determination follows. The proposed rule,
Sec. 25.1302, addresses human factors as they apply to installed
equipment on the flight deck because crew limitations and design-
related errors are not currently covered by the regulations in so
specific a manner. The proposed rule would harmonize with EASA's CS
25.1302, which is already in effect. Manufacturers and modifiers of
transport category aircraft would be affected by this proposed rule.
But a review of current manufacturers has revealed they already meet or
intend to meet the EASA standard as it exists in CS 25.1302. Since the
requirements in the proposed rule are in CS 25.1302, the manufacturers
would incur no additional costs. This is, therefore, a clarification of
the intent for CS 25.1302 by EASA and the FAA.
The compliance of manufacturers with the EASA requirements would
increase safety by (1) reducing the likelihood of flight crew errors
and (2) enabling detection and recovery from errors that do occur, or
mitigating their effects. Since the manufacturers intend to comply with
the EASA requirements, however, there would be no additional safety
benefits. The proposed rule would provide economic benefits from
reduced joint certification costs brought about by a reduction in data
collection and analysis and by a reduction in the paperwork and time
required in the certification process. The FAA therefore has determined
that this proposed rule would have minimal costs with positive net
benefits and does not warrant a full regulatory evaluation. The FAA
requests comments regarding this determination.
The FAA has also determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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
[[Page 6093]]
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.
As noted above, this proposed rule would not entail any additional
costs to transport category manufacturers as they are already in
compliance or intend to fully comply with the EASA standard. Therefore,
the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
solicits comments regarding this determination.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would promote international trade by harmonizing with corresponding
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations, thus reducing the
cost of joint certification.
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 FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $143.1 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
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. The FAA has determined that
there are no new information collection requirements associated with
this proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
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 that this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j), FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure that the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider all comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal because
of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
[[Page 6094]]
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy 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 (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Human factors, Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.
2. Add Sec. 25.1302 to Subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1302 Installed systems and equipment for use by the
flightcrew.
This section applies to installed systems and equipment intended
for flightcrew members' use in operating the airplane from their
normally seated positions on the flight deck. The applicant must show
that these systems and installed equipment, individually and in
combination with other such systems and equipment, are designed so that
qualified flightcrew members trained in their use can safely perform
all of the tasks associated with the systems' and equipment's intended
function. Such installed equipment and systems must meet the following
requirements:
(a) Flight deck controls must be installed to allow accomplishment
of all the tasks required to safely perform the equipment's intended
function including providing information to the flightcrew that is
necessary to accomplish the defined tasks.
(b) Flight deck controls and information intended for the
flightcrew's use must:
(1) Be provided in a clear and unambiguous manner at a resolution
and precision appropriate to the task.
(2) Be accessible and usable by the flightcrew in a manner
consistent with the urgency, frequency, and duration of their tasks,
and
(3) Enable flightcrew awareness, if awareness is required for safe
operation, of the effects on the airplane or systems resulting from
flightcrew actions.
(c) Operationally-relevant behavior of the installed equipment must
be:
(1) Predictable and unambiguous, and
(2) Designed to enable the flightcrew to intervene in a manner
appropriate to the task.
(d) To the extent practicable, installed equipment must incorporate
means to enable the flightcrew to manage errors resulting from the
kinds of flightcrew interactions with the equipment that can be
reasonably expected in service. This paragraph does not apply to any of
the following:
(1) Skill-related errors associated with manual control of the
airplane;
(2) Errors that result from decisions, actions, or omissions
committed with malicious intent;
(3) Errors arising from a crewmember's reckless decisions, actions,
or omissions reflecting a substantial disregard for safety; and
(4) Errors resulting from acts or threats of violence, including
actions taken under duress.
Issued in Washington, DC on January 26, 2011.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2358 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P