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

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 a 

conventional layout with twin wingmounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB 

engines. It features a twin aisle 9-abreast 

economy class layout, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 and 

configurations, 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS