### 67077 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Option B

This option amends section 1201.56 to address the burdens and degrees of proof applicable in cases other than: (1) An individual right of action (IRA) appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act, (2) an appeal under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), and (3) an appeal under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), in which the appellant alleges discrimination or retaliation in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311. This option would also add a new regulation, 1201.57, that would address how an appellant can establish jurisdiction in the three types of appeals not covered by revised section 1201.56. Finally, this option would amend 5 CFR 1201.4 by transferring definitions of ‘‘substantial evidence,’’ ‘‘preponderance of the evidence,’’ and ‘‘harmful error’’ from 1201.56 and adding a definition for ‘‘non-frivolous allegation.’’
Option C

This option attempts to clarify how jurisdiction should be established in Board proceedings by amending the Board’s regulations to state that all Board appeals include ‘‘who’’ and ‘‘what’’ jurisdictional elements that must be established by preponderant evidence, and identify the 8 appeal types that require allegations as to specific merits issues in order to establish jurisdiction. This option would also include regulatory language stating that the MSPB is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on matters on which the appellant bears the burden of proof when there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved.
Option D

This option is the same as Option C, except that it does not include the proposed regulatory language authorizing an appeal to be decided without an evidentiary hearing when there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved. Option D would continue the Board’s current practice of affording appellants the opportunity for a hearing, if requested, in all cases within its jurisdiction. Comments Requested

The Board seeks public input before taking action to amend 5 CFR 1201.56 or otherwise alter its regulations governing how a party can establish jurisdiction over an appeal. Comments are invited concerning the 4 options developed by the regulations working group and/or any alternative approaches to improving the MSPB’s regulations governing the establishment of MSPB jurisdiction over an appeal.

The Board intends to consider all public comments prior to taking further action. However, the Board does not plan to respond to the comments it receives, either directly or in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2013–26783 Filed 11–7–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 7401–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 25**

**[Docket No. FAA–2013–0903; Notice No. 25– 13–26–SC]** 

**Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350–900 Series Airplane; Side Stick**  **Controllers**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed special conditions.

**SUMMARY :**  This action proposes special conditions for the Airbus Model A350– 900 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with side stick controllers for pitch and roll control instead of conventional wheels and columns. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

**DATES :**  Send your comments on or before December 23, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0903 using any of the following methods:

• Federal eRegulations 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 (DOT), 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.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change,
to http://www.regulations.gov/

, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), as well as at http:// DocketsInfo.dot.gov/

.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the 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.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Loran Haworth, FAA, Airplane and Flight 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.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these proposed special conditions based on the comments we receive. Background

On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their new Model A350–900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested and the FAA approved an extension to the application for FAA type certification to June 28, 2009. The Model A350–900 series has aconventional layout with twin wingmounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. It features a twin aisle 9-abreast economy class layout, and


### 67078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules

accommodates side-by-side placement of LD–3 containers in the cargo compartment. The basic Airbus Model A350–900 series configuration will accommodate 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 602,000 lbs. Airbus proposes the Model A350– 900 series to be certified for extended operations (ETOPS) beyond 180 minutes at entry into service for up to a 420- minute maximum diversion time.

The Airbus Model A350–900 series airplane, like its predecessors the A320, A330, A340 and A380, will use side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements pertaining to conventional wheel and column, such as pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable for the side stick. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. Type Certification Basis

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A350–900 series meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–128.

The FAA has determined that Airbus Model A350–900 series airplanes must comply with the following sections: §§ 25.143, 25.145(b), 25.175(b), 25.671, and 25.1329(a).

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A350–900 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, the Airbus Model A350–900 series must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise Control Act of 1972.’’ The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38,and they become part of the typecertification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Airbus Model A350–900 series will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: side stick controllers for pitch and roll control in place of conventional wheels and columns.

Discussion

Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The unique features of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics when considering the following:

(1) The handling qualities tasks/ requirements of the A350 Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25 requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the effects of turbulence.

(2) General ergonomics: Arm rest comfort and support, local freedom of movement, displacement angle suitability, and axis harmony.

(3) Inadvertent input in turbulence. (4) Inadvertent pitch-roll cross talk. The Handling Qualities Rating Method (HQRM) of Appendix 5 of the Flight Test Guide, AC 25–7C, may be used to show compliance. Applicability

As discussed above, these proposed special conditions apply to Airbus Model A350–900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Airbus Model A350–900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Airbus Model A350–900 series airplanes in the absence of specific requirements for side stick controllers:

1. Pilot strength: In lieu of the ‘‘strength of pilots’’ limits shown in § 25.143(c) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch force requirement of §§ 25.145(b) and 25.175(d), it must be shown that the temporary and maximum prolonged force levels for the side stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions andconfigurations, whether normal or nonnormal.

2. Pilot control authority: The electronic side stick controller coupling design must provide for corrective and/ or overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to the flight crew.

3. Pilot control: It must be shown by flight tests that the use of side stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2013. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–26912 Filed 11–7–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION** 

**17 CFR Part 170**

**RIN 3038–AE09**

**Membership in a Registered Futures Association** 

**AGENCY :**  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) proposes to amend its regulations to require that all persons registered with the Commission as introducing brokers (‘‘IBs’’), commodity pool operators (‘‘CPOs’’), and commodity trading advisors (‘‘CTAs’’) must become and remain members of at least one registered futures association (‘‘RFA’’).

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2014.