```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6088-6094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 
Loran.Haworth@faa.gov.
    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 Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov.

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
```