This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

67201 

Vol. 75, No. 211 

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 

1Published in the Federal Register (41 FR 55467) 

on December 20, 1976; Amendment No. 25–38. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No.: FAA–2008–1292; Amendment 

No. 25–131] 

RIN 2120–AJ35 

Flightcrew Alerting 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes concerning flightcrew 

alerting. These standards update 

definitions, prioritization, color 

requirements, and performance for 

flightcrew alerting to reflect changes in 

technology and functionality. This 

amendment adds additional alerting 

functions, and consolidates and 

standardizes definitions and regulations 

for flightcrew warning, caution, and 

advisory alerting systems. This action 

will result in harmonized standards 

between the FAA and the European 

Aviation Safety Agency. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective January 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this rule, 

contact Loran Haworth, FAA, 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 425–227–1232; e-mail 

Loran.Haworth@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

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: 

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 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards in the interest 

of safety 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 

Section 25.1322 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR), became 

effective February 1, 1977,1 and has 

never been amended. Since it was 

issued there have been many advances 

in the design and technology of flight 

deck alerting devices. The new 

technologies associated with integrated 

visual, aural, and tactile flightcrew 

alerts and alert messaging are more 

effective in alerting the flightcrew and 

aiding them in decision making than the 

discrete colored lights for warning, 

caution, and advisory alerts prescribed 

in § 25.1322. The word ‘‘alert’’ in the 

above context is a generic term used to 

describe a flight deck indication meant 

to attract the attention of the flightcrew 

and identify a non-normal operational 

or airplane system condition. Warnings, 

cautions, and advisories are considered 

to be categories of alerts. 

Because § 25.1322 is outdated and 

lacks content commensurate with stateof-the-art flight deck display technology, 

applicants have to perform additional 

work when showing compliance to that 

regulation. This results in additional 

work for the FAA, which has to generate 

issue papers and special conditions 

when applicants want to install 

advanced flight deck designs and 

current display technologies that are not 

addressed in § 25.1322. 

Summary of the NPRM 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), Notice No. 09–05, published in 

the Federal Register on July 9, 2009 (74 

FR 32810), is the basis for this final rule. 

The public comment period closed on 

September 8, 2009. In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed to amend the 

airworthiness standards for flightcrew 

alerting in transport category airplanes. 

The proposed standards addressed 

regulations regarding definitions, 

prioritization, color requirements, and 

performance for flightcrew alerting. In 

the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to 

update the current standards to reflect 

the current technology and functionality 

for flightcrew alerting. 

Summary of the Final Rule 

The FAA is adopting this final rule to 

update the flightcrew alerting standards 

so they are relevant to the current 

technology. This includes adding 

additional alerting functions, and 

consolidating and standardizing 

definitions and regulations for 

flightcrew warning, caution, and 

advisory alerting systems. Adopting this 

rule also harmonizes flightcrew alerting 

standards between the FAA and the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA). This rule will apply to 

applications for type certificates 

submitted after the effective date of the 

rule. This rule may also apply to 

applications for type design changes, 

including amended Type Certificates 

and Supplemental Type Certificates, 

submitted after the effective date of the 

rule, in accordance with § 21.101. 

This final rule adopts the proposed 

rule with wording changes to improve 

clarity. Also, the order of certain 

paragraphs has been changed to 

improve the coherence of the rule. 

Summary of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 18 

commenters, including civil aviation 

authorities, manufacturers, aviation 

associations, and the National 

Transportation Safety Board. All of the 

commenters generally supported the 

proposed changes to § 25.1322. Only the 

substantive comments are discussed 

below. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The full text of each commenter’s submission is 

available in the public docket. 

3AC 20–149, Safety and Interoperability 

Requirements for Initial Domestic Flight 

Information Service-Broadcast, 8/31/2005. AC 25– 

23, Airworthiness Criteria for the Installation 

Approval of a Terrain Awareness and Warning 

System (TAWS) for Part 25 Airplanes, 5/22/2000. 

AC 25–11A, Electronic Flight Deck Displays, 06/21/ 

2007. AC 25–12, Airworthiness Criteria for the 

Approval of Airborne Windshear Warning Systems 

in Transport Category Airplanes, 11/2/87. AC 20– 

131A, Airworthiness Approval of Traffic Alert and 

Collision Avoidance Systems Aircraft Flight 

Information Services-Broadcast (FIS–B) Data Link 

Systems and (TCAS II) and Mode S Transponders, 

03/29/1993. AC 20–149, Safety and Interoperability 

Requirements for Initial Domestic Flight 

Information Service-Broadcast, 08/31/2005. TSO– 

C117, Airborne Windshear Warning and Escape 

Guidance Systems for Transport Airplanes, 01/10/ 

1990. TSO–C147, Traffic Advisory System (TAS) 

Airborne Equipment, 4/16/1998. TSO–C151b, 

Terrain Awareness and Avoidance System, 12/17/ 

2002. TSO–C157, Aircraft Flight Information 

Services-Broadcast (FIS–B) Data Link Systems and 

Equipment, 9/20/2004. 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA received comments on the 

following general areas of the proposal: 

• Reserving and limiting the use of 

alerting colors red, amber, or yellow on 

the flight deck. 

• Restricting the use of yellow to 

caution alerts only. 

• Restricting the use of certain colors 

for advisory alerts. 

• Weather displays and terrain 

awareness and warning system (TAWS) 

displays. 

• Requiring cues from two different 

senses for warning and caution alerts. 

• Identifying an alert and determining 

corrective action. 

• Minimizing and preventing the 

effects of false and nuisance alerts. 

• Suppressing the attention-getting 

component of an alert caused by failure 

of the alerting function. 

• Requiring that an alert presentation 

be removed once the condition no 

longer exists. 

• Presenting alerts on multi-color 

displays. 

• Presenting alerts on monochromatic 

displays. 

• Prioritizing alerts within a given 

category. 

• Applying the changed product rule. 

• Economic impact. 

Below is a more detailed discussion of 

the rule, as it relates to the comments 

the FAA received to the NPRM.2

Reserving and Limiting the Use of Red, 

Amber, or Yellow on the Flight Deck 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

visual alert indications shown on multicolor displays conform to the following 

color convention (proposed 

§ 25.1322(d)): 

(1) Red for warning alert indications; 

(2) Amber or yellow for caution alert 

indications; 

(3) Any color except red, amber, 

yellow, or green for advisory alert 

indications. 

The FAA also proposed that the use of 

red, amber, and yellow be reserved for 

alerting functions and that the use of 

these colors for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting must be limited and 

not adversely affect flightcrew alerting 

(proposed § 25.1322(f)). 

After review, commenters’ greatest 

concern with the proposed rule was the 

restriction imposed on color usage in 

the flight deck. However, following 

comments and internal FAA review, the 

final rule text now combines two 

sentences into one, to further clarify the 

intent to limit the use of certain colors. 

The final rule text for § 25.1322(f) states: 

‘‘Use of the colors red, amber, and 

yellow on the flight deck for functions 

other than flightcrew alerting must be 

limited and must not adversely affect 

flightcrew alerting.’’ The final rule text 

is harmonized with EASA. Airbus 

commented that the FAA’s proposal to 

limit the use of red to only warning 

alerts is too restrictive. Airbus stated 

that some system failures may require 

immediate response during certain 

operations but not in others, and that 

the color coding must always consider 

the worst case scenario. Airbus 

proposed that paragraph § 25.1322(f) be 

revised to add: ‘‘However, deviations are 

acceptable for: (i) The use of red for 

failure flags on primary flight display 

and navigation display that may require 

immediate crew awareness and 

response;’’ 

The FAA has changed the final rule 

text; however, these changes do not 

align with Airbus’ proposal. The 

purpose of this final rule is to update 

the current standards to provide an 

increased level of safety. The FAA notes 

the trend in flightcrew alerting is toward 

reducing nuisance alerts by using 

smarter alerting, where the alerting 

system has built-in logic and knows 

when to display the alerts. The rule will 

require that alerting functions be 

designed to minimize the effects of false 

and nuisance alerts and prevent the 

presentation of these alerts when they 

are inappropriate. Red flags are one way 

to present visual warning information. 

However, alert indications that are 

similar in presentation but have two 

different meanings can be confusing to 

the flightcrew. Airbus’ suggested text 

sets up a situation where certain red 

flags require immediate flightcrew 

response, while other red flags do not. 

This creates an opportunity for pilot 

error in determining the significance of 

the flag (since it has more than one 

meaning) and will slow the flightcrew’s 

response to the flagged alert. Such a 

result is against the purpose of the rule. 

Additional guidance on flags is found in 

advisory circular (AC) 25.1322–1. 

Airbus also commented that red, 

amber, and yellow are used for 

graphical depictions of weather 

phenomena and terrain elevation. The 

limitation in the last sentence of 

proposed paragraph § 25.1322(f) may be 

interpreted (or misinterpreted) as not 

allowing the use of red, amber, or 

yellow for weather displays and TAWS. 

Airbus proposed that paragraph 

§ 25.1322(f) be revised to add: 

However, deviations are acceptable for: (ii) 

The use of red and amber for weather 

display, terrain hazard [TAWS] and TCAS 

[traffic collision avoidance system] sector, 

provided widely spread standards are used. 

The FAA acknowledges that red, 

amber, and yellow have been used for 

weather radar, TAWS, and TCAS 

displays. However, the FAA does not 

agree that the suggestion to limit the use 

of these colors for alerts can be broadly 

interpreted as not allowing the use of 

red, amber, or yellow for weather radar, 

wind shear, TAWS, and TCAS. The 

FAA has guidance regarding colors that 

can be used on these specific displays 

in ACs and technical standard orders 

(TSO).3 For example, AC 20–149 states 

that for flight information servicebroadcast weather, red ‘‘should be 

associated with a need for immediate 

flightcrew awareness and/or conditions 

that represent serious near-term or 

serious potential threats to safety.’’ 

Amber should be for flightcrew 

awareness of conditions that represent 

moderate near-term or moderate 

potential threats to safety. Also, AC 25– 

23 includes guidance stating that TAWS 

should be compliant with the 

requirements of § 25.1322 and use the 

color scheme specified in § 25.1322. The 

FAA guidance that recommends the use 

of red, amber, or yellow for indications 

other than alerts should be construed as 

FAA agreement that use of these colors 

comply with the published guidance of 

§ 25.1322. Using these colors for 

indications other than alerts is 

acceptable if the use is limited and does 

not adversely affect flightcrew alerting. 

Paragraph (f) is intended to limit the use 

of these colors outside of flightcrew 

alerting features and functions in order 

to standardize their use within the flight 

deck, to protect their meaning, and to 

avoid diluting their attention-getting 

characteristics. However, it is not our 

intent to entirely prohibit their use for 

any other functions. If proposed for any 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67203 

4AC 25–11, Transport Category Airplanes 

Electronic Display Systems, 16 July 1987. 

functions other than flightcrew alerting, 

an applicant would have to show an 

operational need to use these colors for 

other purposes. For example, using 

these colors for marketing or other nonsafety related functions is typically not 

appropriate. Even if an applicant can 

show there is an operational need, using 

these colors for non-flightcrew alerting 

purposes would not be permitted if 

flightcrew alerting is adversely affected. 

Consistent use and standardization for 

red, amber, and yellow is required to 

retain the effectiveness of flightcrew 

alerts. The flightcrew should not 

become desensitized to the meaning and 

importance of color coding for alerts. 

This rule will limit the frequency and 

use of red, amber, and yellow to 

flightcrew alerting-related functions in 

the flight deck. This limitation is also 

necessary to avoid desensitizing pilots 

to the urgency that should be associated 

with the meaning of these colors, which 

could increase the flightcrew’s 

processing time, add to their workload, 

and increase the potential for flightcrew 

confusion or errors. Any proposed uses 

of these colors for non-alerting features 

or functions must show that they do not 

have any of these adverse effects. 

Weather radar and TAWS displays are 

examples of displays that comply with 

this regulation. There is a demonstrated 

operational need for these systems to 

impart safety-related information—for 

example, when the nearby terrain 

presents a threat because it is near and 

at or above the airplane’s flight 

trajectory—using these colors in a 

limited way. Additionally, the FAA has 

found that these displays do not 

adversely affect flightcrew alerting. 

For future certification projects that 

require demonstrated compliance to this 

regulation, existing and previouslyapproved uses of these colors for 

features and functions other than 

flightcrew alerting will be evaluated 

under the criteria described above. 

Boeing suggested adding ‘‘advisory’’ as 

an alert for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting that must not 

adversely affect flightcrew alerting. 

Boeing stated that the color for advisory 

alerts must be reserved for the same 

reason the colors for warning and 

caution alerts are being protected. 

The FAA agrees that the final rule 

could include additional limitations 

regarding the use of certain colors in the 

flight deck. However, reserving the color 

used for advisory alerts was not 

included in the proposed rule because 

advisory alerts would further restrict 

available colors for other uses, the 

number of colors that can be 

distinguished under all foreseeable 

conditions is already a limited set, and 

advisory alerts do not require immediate 

awareness. 

The guidance in AC 25–11A 

recommends as a best practice to use six 

colors or less in a typical deck to 

display all of the information necessary 

to safely operate the airplane. Since 

Boeing currently uses amber for both 

caution and advisory alerts, it has 

already limited the colors it uses for 

flightcrew alerting to two: Red for 

warning alerts, and amber for caution 

and advisory alerts. This allows Boeing 

to use four additional colors for flight 

deck displays. However, an unequal 

burden would be placed on those 

original equipment manufacturers that 

followed the FAA guidance in AC 25– 

11 4 and used a color other than amber 

for advisory alerts. Those original 

equipment manufacturers would only 

have three additional colors to use 

throughout the flight deck because three 

colors are already reserved for 

flightcrew alerting: Red for warning, 

amber or yellow for caution, and 

whatever color they chose for advisory 

alerts. Although colors used for advisory 

alerts are not restricted in this rule, 

these alerts must still be colored so as 

to perform their intended function. The 

FAA will include guidance language in 

AC 25.1322–1 regarding restrictions on 

the colors that should be used for 

advisory alerts. 

Boeing also commented that limiting 

the use of color for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting is beyond the scope 

of the proposed rule, and can even 

conflict with other rules, advisory 

material, and industry standards for the 

use of color. As an example, Boeing 

cited § 25.1549, Powerplant and 

auxiliary power unit instruments, which 

prescribes color requirements for the 

use of red and yellow on engine 

instruments. 

The FAA has determined that limiting 

the use of red, amber, and yellow on the 

flight deck for functions other than 

alerting is within the scope of this rule. 

The FAA’s intent is to limit the widespread use of red, amber, and yellow in 

the flight deck so when a pilot sees one 

of these colors the pilot can quickly 

identify that indication as an alert. 

Similar wording was recommended in 

the ARAC final report. As explained 

above, the proposed rule stated that the 

use of red, amber, or yellow for 

functions other than flightcrew alerting 

must be limited and must not ‘‘adversely 

affect’’ flightcrew alerting. Section 

25.1322(f) of the final rule has been 

revised to emphasize that use of the 

colors red, amber, and yellow on the 

flight deck for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting must be limited and 

must not adversely affect flightcrew 

alerting. 

Regarding Boeing’s comment that 

limiting the use of color for functions 

other than flightcrew alerting might 

conflict with other rules, specifically 

§ 25.1549 on engine instruments, 

neither proposed nor final § 25.1322 

would prohibit compliance with the 

color requirements of § 25.1549. The 

required use of red and yellow in that 

section is consistent with the warning 

and caution criteria of this rule. 

Requiring That Yellow Only Be Used 

for Caution Alerts 

Proposed § 25.1322(d)(2) would have 

required that amber or yellow be used 

for caution alerts. Airbus stated that this 

proposed requirement was too 

restrictive. The color yellow is 

extensively used in all Airbus flight 

decks, but not for alerting purposes. 

Yellow is used to distinguish between 

displays that indicate systems and 

operations are normal and displays that 

indicate there is a problem. 

One reason the FAA proposed to limit 

the use of yellow was that amber and 

yellow are visually similar—research 

studies, discussed in the original 

version of AC 25–11, indicate high color 

confusion between yellow and amber. 

Further, yellow is already used to 

indicate cautionary ranges on some 

electronic and mechanical displays. The 

ARAC final report also made the same 

recommendation to limit the use of 

yellow. In addition, the original version 

of AC 25–11 included a statement that 

‘‘the extensive use of the color yellow 

for other than caution/abnormal 

information is discouraged.’’ The 

guidance in AC 25–11A states: ‘‘Use of 

the color yellow for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting should be limited 

and should not adversely affect 

flightcrew alerting.’’ Therefore, Airbus 

may continue to use yellow to indicate 

normal operation and airplane system 

conditions, but only if use of this color 

is limited and Airbus can demonstrate 

that there is no adverse effect on 

flightcrew alerting. The intent of the 

proposed rule is retained in this final 

rule but the text has been revised for 

clarity. 

Restricting the Use of Certain Colors for 

Advisory Alerts 

Proposed § 25.1322(d)(3) would have 

prohibited the use of red, amber, yellow, 

or green for advisory alerts. Boeing and 

Airbus objected to the inclusion of 

amber and yellow in this proposed 

restriction and provided the following 

reasons: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5One organization is SAE Technical Committee 

G–10, Aerospace Behavioral Engineering 

Technology. 

(1) There are no known incidents or 

accidents that can be attributed to the 

inability of the flightcrew to distinguish 

between caution and advisory alerts. 

(2) There are a limited number of 

display colors available for use on flight 

deck displays. 

(3) The use of certain colors for 

advisory level alerts is already 

widespread in the aviation industry. 

(4) If an advisory alert is presented in 

any color other than amber or yellow 

the flightcrew would not perceive the 

alert as non-normal. 

Boeing suggested that, instead of 

prohibiting the use of certain colors, 

there should be a requirement that the 

alert categories be readily 

distinguishable from each other. Boeing 

and Airbus both agreed that red should 

not be used for advisory alerts. 

The FAA concurs with the reasons 

provided by the commenters and has 

removed the restriction. The final rule 

allows the use of amber or yellow for 

advisory alerts, as was allowed in the 

ARAC final report. However, in AC 

25.1322, the FAA will recommend that 

a separate and distinct color be used 

when possible. The AC will also 

recommend that, if color is not used to 

distinguish between caution and 

advisory alerts, any alternate coding 

technique must meet the general 

requirements of § 25.1322(a)(2) so the 

flightcrew can readily and easily detect 

the difference between caution and 

advisory alerts. 

Using Green for Advisory Alerts 

The FAA received several comments 

regarding the use of the color green. 

Cessna recommended that green be used 

for advisory alerts and that green should 

be mentioned in the final rule. Embraer 

asked that the requirements clearly 

address the use of the color green. 

Airbus stated that prohibiting green for 

advisory alerts is too restrictive. The 

General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) wanted to retain 

the use of green to indicate that systems 

are safely operating. GAMA requested 

that the proposed rule be changed to 

specify that green must be used to 

identify a safe operation and that in 

some instances yellow may also be used 

for non-cautionary alerts. 

The FAA finds the suggestion to use 

green for normal operation and system 

conditions to be outside the scope of 

this final rule. Alerts are associated with 

non-normal operation or system 

conditions, not normal conditions. The 

FAA’s original intent in the proposed 

requirements for § 25.1322 was to 

address only non-normal operation or 

system conditions. The final rule text 

has been revised for clarity and 

§ 25.1322(a)(1)(i) now states that 

flightcrew alerts must ‘‘[i]dentify nonnormal operation or airplane system 

conditions * * *.’’ 

Further, the FAA already provides a 

recommendation for using green to 

indicate that systems are normal in AC 

25–11A, Table 11 (recommended 

colors). 

Limiting the Colors That Can Be Used 

for Weather Displays and TAWS 

Displays 

Airbus and a private citizen 

commented that the color ‘‘green’’ 

should be allowed for weather displays, 

TAWS, and TCAS. Airbus proposed that 

red, amber, yellow, and green should be 

allowed for weather displays and TAWS 

displays with no restrictions or 

limitations. Airbus also commented that 

magenta is used in the weather radar 

system to provide ‘‘turbulence ahead’’ 

alerts and in TAWS for advisory alerts. 

The private citizen stated that the 

definition within the color radar 

guidance calls the various colors 

‘‘warnings,’’ including the use of green 

for a ‘‘minimum warning.’’ 

As previously mentioned, Table 11 in 

AC 25–11A lists recommended colors 

for certain functions. Table 12 in AC 

25–11A provides specific colors for 

certain display features. The color 

magenta is typically used for an 

instrument landing system deviation 

pointer, and for a selected heading and 

active route/flight plan. Green is 

typically used to indicate engaged 

modes and normal conditions, current 

data, and values. As adopted, 

§ 25.1322(e) requires that red be used for 

warning alerts, yellow or amber for 

caution alerts, and any other color 

except red and green for advisory alerts. 

This final rule will not allow the use 

of magenta for a warning or caution 

category alert. However, magenta can be 

used on weather displays for awareness 

of turbulence and heavy rain. Green can 

also be used on a weather display and 

typically indicates areas of light rainfall. 

The FAA could not find any references 

to using green for ‘‘minimum warning.’’ 

Section 25.1322 does not allow use of 

the color green for a non-normal alert 

Use of the colors green and magenta for 

awareness on a weather display is 

acceptable if it is within the 

manufacturer’s color philosophy to use 

these colors for that purpose. 

A consistent and standardized color 

usage is desirable to ensure the pilot 

understands the urgency of an alert 

based on its color. The manufacturer 

and the FAA should evaluate 

inconsistencies in color usage to ensure 

that these do not lead to confusion or 

errors, and do not adversely impact the 

intended function of the system(s) 

involved. Color usage should adhere to 

the color coding guidance in AC 25– 

11A. 

The FAA has tasked ARAC with 

updating the guidance in AC 25–11A for 

weather displays in transport category 

airplanes. To meet this goal, ARAC has 

re-convened the ASHWG, which is 

working with industry and professional 

organizations.5 For weather displays, 

TAWS, TCAS, or any other piece of 

flight deck equipment, other regulations 

(for example, § 25.1309(c)) determine 

whether any particular flight deck 

indication serves the function of an alert 

(for example, whether it identifies ‘‘nonnormal’’ operation). If a flight deck 

indication is determined to be an alert, 

this indication must then comply with 

the requirement of § 25.1322. 

WSI Corporation, a company that 

provides a subscription service for 

aviation weather information, 

commented that the proposed rule 

would not standardize color usage for 

the presentation of datalink radar, warm 

fronts, and low pressure systems. WSI 

stated that the proposed rule language 

would slow the adoption of proven 

technology or create non-standard 

presentations of weather phenomena, 

because designers would each have 

their own interpretation of what is 

meant by a display that does ‘‘not 

adversely affect flightcrew alerting.’’ 

The FAA understands this 

commenter’s concern regarding nonstandard presentations on weather 

displays. The FAA did not intend to use 

§ 25.1322 to standardize color usage for 

datalink radar, warm fronts, or low 

pressure system displays. The FAA does 

intend to include guidance on how to 

comply with the requirement that using 

red, amber, and yellow on the flight 

deck for functions other than flightcrew 

alerting must be limited and must not 

adversely affect flightcrew alerting. If an 

applicant chooses to use alerting colors 

for non-alerting functions, that 

applicant is responsible for showing 

that the use of these colors is limited, 

meets an operational need, and does not 

cause an adverse effect on flightcrew 

alerting. The determination of what is 

considered adverse depends not only on 

the actual display but also on how the 

display is integrated on the flight deck. 

The adverse effect associated with using 

alerting colors for non-alerting functions 

is that the flightcrew may spend extra 

time to determine whether a flightcrew 

alert actually occurred and, if so, its 

meaning. In general, use of alerting 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67205 

colors for non-alerting purposes would 

be considered adverse effects when such 

use: (1) Interferes with the flightcrew’s 

ability to identify non-normal operation 

or airplane system conditions, (2) slows 

the flightcrew’s awareness of and 

response to an alert, (3) slows the 

flightcrew’s ability to determine the 

appropriate actions, and (4) interferes 

with the flightcrew’s ability to readily 

and easily detect and understand the 

alert under all foreseeable operation 

conditions. Since several factors 

determine whether using alerting colors 

for non-alerting purposes will have an 

adverse effect, evaluations during 

simulations or flight tests will usually 

be required. Alerting components found 

on weather displays must follow the 

requirements in this final rule. As 

previously mentioned, ARAC is 

currently tasked with developing 

recommendations for a revision to AC 

25–11A that will address guidance for 

weather displays in transport category 

airplanes. 

Requiring Cues From Two Different 

Senses for Warning and Caution Alerts 

Proposed § 25.1322(a)(1) would have 

required attention-getting cues through 

at least two different senses. Cessna 

agreed that warning alerts should have 

two sensory cues. However, it did not 

agree that all caution alerts must require 

two sensory alerts. Cessna also stated 

that the priority of the alert should 

determine if two sensory alerts are 

necessary (for example, safety of flight 

issue). 

The FAA’s reason for the two sensory 

alerts requirement is that both warning 

and caution alerts require immediate 

flightcrew awareness, and adding the 

requirement for getting attention 

through a second sense helps to ensure 

flightcrew awareness. The two sensory 

alerts requirement is supported by 

ARAC recommendation and by the 

NTSB’s comments to the NPRM. The 

final rule retains this safety 

requirement. 

Identifying Alerts and Determining 

Corrective Action 

The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International, and Boeing commented 

that the term ‘‘[d]etermine corrective 

action’’ in proposed § 25.1322(a)(2) 

could be interpreted three different 

ways. It could be a requirement (1) to 

provide specific instructions on the 

alerting display; (2) that the alert 

determine the correct action, or (3) that 

the flightcrew determine the correct 

action or respond to an alert condition. 

These commenters stated that the alert 

should ‘‘help’’ the flightcrew determine 

the correct action. 

Although the FAA believes that the 

proposed language in § 25.1322(a) 

implies flightcrew decision-making 

rather than a reduction in pilot 

decision-making or authority, we have 

clarified and reorganized § 25.1322(a) in 

the final rule. Section 25.1322(a)(1) 

requires that flightcrew alerts provide 

the flightcrew with the information 

needed to (1) identify non-normal 

operation or airplane system conditions, 

and (2) determine the appropriate 

actions, if any. The FAA did not 

incorporate the commenters’ 

suggestions to include the words ‘‘help’’ 

or ‘‘allow’’ in the final rule because those 

words would weaken the requirement 

that the system needs to provide 

sufficient information for the flightcrew 

to make an informed decision. Also, the 

FAA and industry acknowledge that, in 

some situations, time-critical alerts must 

be direct. 

Deleting the Words ‘‘Less Urgent’’ in the 

Definition of Caution Alert 

The text for § 25.1322(b)(2) proposed 

that alerts conform to a prioritization 

hierarchy that included a caution alert 

for conditions that require immediate 

flightcrew awareness and less urgent 

flightcrew response. A private citizen, 

Boeing, and EASA recommended 

removing the words ‘‘less urgent,’’ or as 

an alternative define what this term 

means. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters’ 

suggestions and § 25.1322(b)(2) has 

revised the caution alert to require 

immediate flightcrew awareness and 

subsequent flightcrew response. 

Minimizing and Preventing the Effects 

of False and Nuisance Alerts 

Proposed § 25.1322(c) required the 

presentation of alerts be designed to 

minimize nuisance effects and, 

specifically, (1) permit each occurrence 

of attention-getting cues to be 

acknowledged and suppressed, (2) 

prevent the presentation of an 

inappropriate or unnecessary alert, (3) 

remove the alert when the condition no 

longer exists, and (4) provide a means 

to suppress an attention-getting 

component of an alert caused by a 

failure of the alerting system that 

interferes with the flightcrew’s ability to 

safely operate the airplane. 

EASA and Cessna expressed concern 

that inappropriate or unnecessary alerts 

could not be fully prevented and that 

the requirement to ‘‘prevent’’ might be 

too stringent. GAMA was concerned 

that the term ‘‘minimize’’ would set a 

continually moving regulatory target 

and requested that the FAA clarify the 

intent of this requirement. 

In response to EASA and Cessna, the 

FAA’s intent was to emphasize that 

features to prevent inappropriate or 

unnecessary alerts should be a part of 

the design process for how to present 

alerts. In response to GAMA, the FAA 

will include methods of compliance for 

‘‘minimizing’’ nuisance effects in AC 

25.1322–1. GAMA is correct in 

assuming that, as future methods and 

technologies become more capable of 

minimizing the effects of false and 

nuisance alerts, the FAA will expect 

industry to use best practices to 

minimize these effects. 

In the final rule, the FAA moved the 

requirements of proposed § 25.1322(c) 

to a new paragraph § 25.1322(d) and 

added the words ‘‘the effects of false 

and’’ to the introductory sentence. That 

introductory sentence now states ‘‘[t]he 

alert function must be designed to 

minimize the effects of false and 

nuisance alerts. In particular, it must be 

designed to: (1) Prevent the presentation 

of an alert that is inappropriate or 

unnecessary.’’ This rule text was 

harmonized with EASA. 

Suppressing the Attention-Getting 

Component of an Alert Caused by 

Failure of the Alerting Function 

Proposed § 25.1322(c)(4) requires the 

flightcrew alerting system provide a 

means to suppress an attention-getting 

component of an alert caused by a 

failure of the alerting system that 

interferes with the flightcrew’s ability to 

safely operate the airplane. Airbus and 

Embraer asked what part of the alert 

would be suppressed, the attentiongetting component or the alert itself? 

Embraer also asked: 

• How does the FAA propose to alert 

the crew of failure of the alerting system 

itself? 

• Does this refer to global suppression 

or suppression of a single event? 

The scenario that the FAA envisioned 

when proposing this requirement is 

when an alert’s attention-getting 

component (for example, continuous 

aural alerts or continuous flashing 

lights) interferes with the flightcrew’s 

ability to safely operate the airplane. 

Manufacturers must provide a means, 

through their design, to suppress the 

attention-getting component(s). This 

rule did not envision a complete failure 

of the alerting system, just the 

interference of attention-getting 

components due to the failure of an 

alerting function. If a more-thorough 

alerting system failure triggers the need 

to inform the flightcrew, the equipment 

manufacturers are responsible for 

determining how the flightcrew will be 

alerted. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Where failure of the alerting function 

interferes with the flightcrew’s ability to 

safely operate the airplane, the proposed 

rule did not specify global suppression 

or suppression of a single event because 

such suppression (global or single 

event) would depend on the particular 

system design and trigger for the false 

alert. The intent of the rule is to 

suppress only the attention-getting 

component that may cause pilot 

distraction. The final rule was not 

changed in response to this comment. 

Removing the Presentation of an Alert 

When the Condition No Longer Exists 

Proposed § 25.1322(c)(3) would 

require that an alert be removed when 

the condition that initiated the alert no 

longer exists. Airbus commented that 

this proposed requirement should be 

flexible enough to allow some 

tolerances or exceptions, notably when 

data or parameters required to 

determine the condition are not 

available. Airbus also proposed that 

paragraph § 25.1322(c)(3) be modified to 

require confirmation that the condition 

no longer exists, except if justified. 

The FAA has determined that the 

alerting function that created the alert 

should be intelligent enough to remove 

the alert when the condition no longer 

exists and there is no longer any need 

for pilot awareness or action. If for any 

reason, including loss of data, the 

systems on the airplane are unable to 

determine that the condition associated 

with the alert no longer exists, but the 

alert persists, the pilot should usually 

assume that the condition still exists. 

We believe an alert that is no longer 

relevant would add clutter to the 

display and could confuse and distract 

the flightcrew from attending to other 

alerts. The commenter did not provide 

and we are not aware of any situation 

that would justify retaining an alert 

when the condition no longer exists. 

The proposal is adopted without 

change. 

Presenting Alerts on Multi-Color 

Displays 

Proposed § 25.1322(d) would require 

visual alert indications that are shown 

on multi-color displays to conform to 

the following color convention: 

(1) Red for warning alert indications. 

(2) Amber or yellow for caution alert 

indications. 

(3) Any color except red, amber, 

yellow, or green for advisory alert 

indications. 

EASA commented that using color for 

alert should be standard; and the term 

‘‘alert’’ is already defined as an 

indication and the words ‘‘that are 

shown on multi-color displays’’ should 

be removed. In addition, EASA 

commented that using color for alerts 

should be the standard. Boeing 

commented that the ARAC 

recommendation purposefully refrained 

from specific technological 

implementations such as lights, color 

displays, monochromatic displays, 

head-up displays (HUDs), and tactile 

and aural devices. The ARAC 

recommendation was based on 

functions, not specific technology. 

Proposed § 25.1322(d) deviated from the 

ARAC recommendations in a way that 

would have unintended effects contrary 

to the overall objective of an improved 

minimum safety standard. For example: 

Master warning and caution lights are 

not on a multi-color display and yet the 

color requirements must still apply. 

Language from the ARAC final report 

is shown below: 

‘‘(d) Alerts must conform to the 

following color convention for visual 

alert indications: 

(1) Red for warning alert indications. 

(2) Amber/yellow for caution alert 

indications. 

(3) Any color except red or green for 

advisory alert indications.’’ 

The FAA and EASA agree with the 

commenter that this proposal would not 

allow for alerts on monochromatic 

HUDs, even though certain time-critical 

alerts on HUDs are in use today. 

However, the FAA believes there is a 

safety benefit for appropriately-designed 

alerts appearing on HUDs, and modified 

ARAC recommendation to allow for 

alerts appearing on HUDs and 

monochromatic displays. Although the 

FAA and EASA reached agreement on 

harmonized language for multi-color 

capable and monochromatic displays for 

visual alerts, the FAA now recognizes 

that this agreed-to language does not 

fully address alerting functions such as 

master caution and master warning 

lights, which are also considered 

monochromatic displays since they are 

capable of providing only a single 

alerting color. 

In response to these comments, the 

FAA revised paragraph § 25.1322(e) in 

this final rule to emphasize the use of 

color for alerts and to also address 

single-color displays that provide 

alerting colors (for example, master 

warning and master caution alerts). The 

revised rule text also renders the 

regulation less technology-specific. 

Presenting Alerts on Monochromatic 

Displays 

Proposed § 25.1322(e) required visual 

alert indications shown on 

monochromatic displays use display 

coding techniques such that the 

flightcrew can clearly distinguish 

between warning, caution, and advisory 

alert categories. 

EASA stated that the use of color for 

alerts should be the standard, and other 

techniques should be considered only in 

cases where color is not possible (for 

example, monochromatic displays and 

HUDs). 

The FAA agrees with EASA; however, 

if color use is not possible to indicate, 

separate, and standardize between alert 

categories, other coding techniques 

must be used that are as effective as the 

color standard. The FAA does not want 

to prescribe coding techniques (other 

than color) that may be used by 

applicants to distinguish the alert 

categories. However, the coding must 

meet all of the applicable requirements 

in this final rule to ensure the alerts are 

readily and easily detectable and 

intelligible by the flightcrew, including 

conditions which present multiple 

alerts (§ 25.1322 (a)(2)). 

Boeing stated that if alerts were made 

visually distinctive by category on a 

head-down display (HDD), and were 

duplicated on a monochromatic display, 

then the duplicate alert on the 

monochromatic display does not need 

to be distinguishable by category. For 

example, if the presentation of an alert 

on HDDs was distinctive so as to easily 

identify its category of alert, then the 

duplicate alert on monochromatic HUDs 

does not need to be visually distinctive. 

Other alert information presented 

simultaneously, such as aural alerts, 

presence of master lights, and visual 

information on HDDs, provides 

sufficient cues to the flightcrew to 

determine the correct response and 

urgency of response. 

The FAA disagrees with Boeing’s 

comment ‘‘that alerts need not be 

visually distinctive so the alert category 

can be easily determined’’ on the HUD. 

It is a key requirement of the visual alert 

indication to distinguish its category, 

regardless of whether the presentation is 

head-up or head-down. The safety 

objective for visual alert indications is 

that they clearly signify the urgency of 

the alert and the need for immediate 

intervention, if applicable. A visual alert 

indication that does not distinguish the 

alert category (for example, warning, 

caution, or advisory) would fail to 

properly convey its urgency. The FAA 

does not expect a pilot using the HUD 

to also scan the head-down primary 

flight display, so the pilot may miss 

what is only on the head-down display. 

If the visual indication of the headdown primary flight display 

distinguishes the alert category, but the 

indication on the HUD does not, it fails 

to meet the safety objective for this rule. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67207 

6 14 CFR 25.1301, Function and Installation. 

7 14 CFR 21.101, Designation of applicable 

regulations (commonly known as the Changed 

Product Rule). 

The FAA revised § 25.1322(e)(2) in 

the final rule to clearly state that visual 

alert indications must conform to the 

prescribed color convention unless it is 

not possible to comply with the 

convention. The additional language 

was needed to address the situation 

where a monochromatic display is 

capable of providing only a single 

alerting color, such as red for a master 

warning, or yellow or amber for a master 

caution light. Adding this language also 

makes the regulation less technologyspecific, as recommended by ARAC and 

commenters. 

Prioritizing Alerts Within a Given 

Category 

Proposed § 25.1322(b) would have 

required that alerts conform to a 

prioritization hierarchy based on 

category, but it did not require alerts to 

be prioritized within a given category. 

EASA commented that this additional 

prioritization should be required. EASA 

also suggested that the information in 

proposed § 25.1322(b) be reorganized 

and moved to a new § 25.1322(c)(1). 

The FAA agrees with both 

suggestions. For alerts to perform their 

intended function as required by 

§ 25.1301,6 they must be prioritized 

when more than one alert is displayed 

at the same time. The FAA has revised 

new § 25.1322(c)(1) to require that alerts 

be prioritized with a given category. A 

typical example of prioritizing alerts 

within categories is the time-critical 

warning alert which, to meet its 

intended function, must have higher 

priority on a display than a general 

warning alert. This change to the final 

rule strengthens the case for prioritizing 

alerts within categories that was part of 

the original ARAC recommendations. 

Guidance for this additional 

prioritization is available in AC 

25.1322–1. 

Economic Impact 

GAMA and a private citizen 

commented on the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. They suggested 

that the rule would affect other 

organizations in addition to the five 

transport category airplane 

manufacturers discussed in the 

Analysis. They commented that the 

proposed rule contained new 

regulations which would apply to 

organizations that design and certify 

equipment installations in the flight 

deck under supplemental type 

certificate (STC) approvals and design 

components for installation in the flight 

deck under the FAA’s technical 

standard order (TSO) program. 

Additionally, the regulations would 

affect modification shops that use the 

field approval process for installing 

equipment in the flight deck. Both 

GAMA and a private citizen 

recommended that the FAA address 

these affected organizations with respect 

to cost, benefit, and small business 

impact. 

GAMA also commented that neither 

the proposed regulation, nor the 

associated guidance material, discussed 

issues related to the Changed Product 

Rule (14 CFR 21.101) and how 

modifications to the flight deck which 

affect or contain alerting functions 

should be addressed. GAMA was 

particularly concerned about the effect 

of changing an existing alerting scheme 

as a result of a minor change in the 

flight deck. 

The FAA disagrees. This rule applies 

only to type certificate applications for 

transport category airplanes submitted 

after the rule’s effective date and to 

certain amended type certificate (TC) 

and supplemental TC (STC) 

applications submitted after that date. 

Modification shops are not permitted 

to obtain field approvals for significant 

product-level changes, so we do not 

anticipate any direct impact of this rule 

on that type of business. A minor 

change to the flight deck would not be 

considered a significant product-level 

change, so updating the existing alerting 

scheme would not be required for minor 

changes. 

There may be some future 

applications for STC approval of 

significant product-level design changes 

that would affect flightcrew alerting. 

The FAA expects that the requirements 

of § 21.101 will determine which future 

design changes would need to have the 

certification bases updated to include 

the requirements in this final rule. The 

FAA addressed these additional costs of 

updating a certification basis in the 

economic evaluation for § 21.101.7

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

GAMA commented that this rule may 

generate an unfunded mandate. The 

FAA calculated the cost of this rule and 

it does not create an unfunded mandate. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

GAMA commented that this rule 

would directly impact the cost of 

installing flight decks in existing 

airplanes which operate in support of 

commerce and the public benefit in 

Alaska. The FAA has determined that 

this rule will not affect any existing 

airplanes. 

Harmonizing Rule Text Between the 

FAA and EASA 

Boeing and Airbus expressed concern 

because the proposed rule deviated in 

some areas from the ARAC 

recommendations and there might be 

conflicts between the FAA and EASA 

regulations. The FAA and EASA have 

harmonized on the rule text. The 

principles behind the ARAC 

recommendations were closely 

followed. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no current 

or new requirement for information 

collection associated with this 

amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, 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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

determined that this final rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not 

an economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action: as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866; (3) is 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector, by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The estimated cost of this final rule 

over the 20-year analysis period is $7.7 

million ($4.1 million present value). 

The estimated potential benefits of this 

final rule over the 20-year analysis 

period, consists of preventing at least 10 

serious injuries worth $8.3 million ($4.4 

million present value). 

Persons Potentially Affected by This 

Rule 

• Manufacturers of future part 25 

airplanes. 

• Manufacturers of future instrument 

panel avionics for future part 25 

airplanes. 

Assumptions 

Discount rates—7%. 

Analysis period—2010 through 2029 

(twenty years). 

Changes From the NPRM to the Final 

Rule 

There were no substantive changes 

made to the Regulatory Evaluation, 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, or 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment as a 

result of comments received on the 

NPRM. 

Benefits of This Rule 

For future part 25 airplanes, we 

estimated that the rule changes would 

avoid about 10 serious injuries over a 

20-year period. The resulting benefits 

include averted fatalities and injuries, 

loss of airplanes, investigation cost, and 

collateral damages. The total benefits 

are about $4.4 million in present value 

terms. 

Costs of This Rule 

There are no additional 

manufacturing or operating costs 

associated with this rule; however, there 

are additional design and certification 

costs to future part 25 airplane 

manufacturers. The average cost 

estimate per new airplane certification 

is $0.7 million. The estimated number 

of new certifications annually is 0.55. 

When the average cost estimate per new 

airplane certification ($0.7 million) is 

multiplied by the estimated annual 

number of new certifications (0.55), the 

estimated annuals costs are $385,000. 

When summed over the 20-year analysis 

period the total cost of this rule is about 

$4.1 million in present value terms. 

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-forprofit 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. 

Section 603 of the Act requires 

agencies to prepare and make available 

for public comment a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing 

the impact of final rules on small 

entities. Section 603(b) of the Act 

specifies the content of a FRFA. Each 

FRFA must contain: 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

final rule; 

• A description and an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, record keeping and other 

compliance requirements of the final 

rule, including an estimate of the classes 

of small entities which will be subject 

to the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

• An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the final rule. 

• Each final regulatory flexibility 

analysis shall also contain a description 

of any significant alternatives to the 

final rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimizes any significant 

economic impact of the final rule or 

small entities. 

GAMA and a private citizen 

commented on the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. The FAA’s 

responses to these comments were 

responded to earlier in the ‘‘Summary of 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

The FAA believes this final rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because all United States transportaircraft category manufacturers exceed 

the Small Business Administration 

small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees. 

In addition, the alerting system design 

firms contacted by the FAA for 

preparation of the initial regulatory 

evaluation did not consider that they 

would incur any additional costs as a 

result of the proposed rule. 

Therefore, as the 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), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any 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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67209 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

FAA notes the purpose is to ensure the 

safety of the American public, and has 

assessed the effects of this rule to ensure 

it does not exclude imports that meet 

this objective. As a result this rule is not 

considered as creating an unnecessary 

obstacle to foreign commerce. 

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 in lieu of $100 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 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. In 

the NPRM, we requested comments on 

whether the proposed rule should apply 

differently to intrastate operations in 

Alaska. We received one comment from 

GAMA stating that this rule will directly 

impact the cost of installing flight decks 

in existing airplanes which operate in 

support of commerce and the public 

benefit in Alaska. We have determined 

that this rule will not affect any existing 

airplanes and, based on the 

administrative record of this 

rulemaking, 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 312(f) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final 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 likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (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 http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—TITLE 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. Revise § 25.1322 to read as follows: 

§ 25.1322 Flightcrew alerting. 

(a) Flightcrew alerts must: 

(1) Provide the flightcrew with the 

information needed to: 

(i) Identify non-normal operation or 

airplane system conditions, and 

(ii) Determine the appropriate actions, 

if any. 

(2) Be readily and easily detectable 

and intelligible by the flightcrew under 

all foreseeable operating conditions, 

including conditions where multiple 

alerts are provided. 

(3) Be removed when the alerting 

condition no longer exists. 

(b) Alerts must conform to the 

following prioritization hierarchy based 

on the urgency of flightcrew awareness 

and response. 

(1) Warning: For conditions that 

require immediate flightcrew awareness 

and immediate flightcrew response. 

(2) Caution: For conditions that 

require immediate flightcrew awareness 

and subsequent flightcrew response. 

(3) Advisory: For conditions that 

require flightcrew awareness and may 

require subsequent flightcrew response. 

(c) Warning and caution alerts must: 

(1) Be prioritized within each 

category, when necessary. 

(2) Provide timely attention-getting 

cues through at least two different 

senses by a combination of aural, visual, 

or tactile indications. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Permit each occurrence of the 

attention-getting cues required by 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section to be 

acknowledged and suppressed, unless 

they are required to be continuous. 

(d) The alert function must be 

designed to minimize the effects of false 

and nuisance alerts. In particular, it 

must be designed to: 

(1) Prevent the presentation of an alert 

that is inappropriate or unnecessary. 

(2) Provide a means to suppress an 

attention-getting component of an alert 

caused by a failure of the alerting 

function that interferes with the 

flightcrew’s ability to safely operate the 

airplane. This means must not be 

readily available to the flightcrew so 

that it could be operated inadvertently 

or by habitual reflexive action. When an 

alert is suppressed, there must be a clear 

and unmistakable annunciation to the 

flightcrew that the alert has been 

suppressed. 

(e) Visual alert indications must: 

(1) Conform to the following color 

convention: 

(i) Red for warning alert indications. 

(ii) Amber or yellow for caution alert 

indications. 

(iii) Any color except red or green for 

advisory alert indications. 

(2) Use visual coding techniques, 

together with other alerting function 

elements on the flight deck, to 

distinguish between warning, caution, 

and advisory alert indications, if they 

are presented on monochromatic 

displays that are not capable of 

conforming to the color convention in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(f) Use of the colors red, amber, and 

yellow on the flight deck for functions 

other than flightcrew alerting must be 

limited and must not adversely affect 

flightcrew alerting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27629 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 95 

[Docket No. 30751; Amdt. No. 490] 

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts 

miscellaneous amendments to the 

required IFR (instrument flight rules) 

altitudes and changeover points for 

certain Federal airways, jet routes, or 

direct routes for which a minimum or 

maximum en route authorized IFR 

altitude is prescribed. This regulatory 

action is needed because of changes 

occurring in the National Airspace 

System. These changes are designed to 

provide for the safe and efficient use of 

the navigable airspace under instrument 

conditions in the affected areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, 

November 18, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure 

Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), 

Flight Technologies and Programs 

Division, Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Mike 

Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 

South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, 

OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 

25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) 

telephone: (405) 954–4164. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

amendment to part 95 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) 

amends, suspends, or revokes IFR 

altitudes governing the operation of all 

aircraft in flight over a specified route 

or any portion of that route, as well as 

the changeover points (COPs) for 

Federal airways, jet routes, or direct 

routes as prescribed in part 95. 

The Rule 

The specified IFR altitudes, when 

used in conjunction with the prescribed 

changeover points for those routes, 

ensure navigation aid coverage that is 

adequate for safe flight operations and 

free of frequency interference. The 

reasons and circumstances that create 

the need for this amendment involve 

matters of flight safety and operational 

efficiency in the National Airspace 

System, are related to published 

aeronautical charts that are essential to 

the user, and provide for the safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace. 

In addition, those various reasons or 

circumstances require making this 

amendment effective before the next 

scheduled charting and publication date 

of the flight information to assure its 

timely availability to the user. The 

effective date of this amendment reflects 

those considerations. In view of the 

close and immediate relationship 

between these regulatory changes and 

safety in air commerce, I find that notice 

and public procedure before adopting 

this amendment are impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest and that 

good cause exists for making the 

amendment effective in less than 30 

days. 

Conclusion 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore—(1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. For the same reason, the 

FAA certifies that this amendment will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95 

Airspace, Navigation (air). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 22, 

2010. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

part 95 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is 

amended as follows effective at 0901 

UTC, November 18, 2010. 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 

44721. 

■ 2. Part 95 is amended to read as 

follows: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES