25840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

or joint applicant who is at least 21 years old 

has the ability to make the required 

minimum periodic payments in accordance 

with § 1026.51(b)(2)(i)(B). 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 29, 2013. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10429 Filed 5–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–1175; Amdt. No. 

25–138] 

RIN 2120–AJ83 

Installed Systems and Equipment for 

Use by the Flightcrew 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends design 

requirements in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes to minimize the occurrence of 

design-related flightcrew errors. The 

new design requirements will enable a 

flightcrew member to detect and manage 

his or her errors when the errors occur. 

Adopting this rule will eliminate 

regulatory differences between the 

airworthiness standards of the United 

States (U.S.) and those of the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) without 

affecting current industry design 

practices. 

DATES: Effective July 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule, contact Loran Haworth, Airplane 

and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM– 

111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1133; 

facsimile (425) 227–1320; email 

Loran.Haworth@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this final 

rule, contact Doug Anderson, Office of 

the Regional Counsel (ANM–7), 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2166; 

facsimile 425–227–1007; email 

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 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for the design and 

performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design, production, and operation of 

transport category airplanes. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AFM Airplane Flight Manual 

ALPA Air Line Pilots Association, 

International 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

DER Designated Engineering Representative 

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency 

EFB Electronic Flight Bag 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FMS Flight Management System 

HF Human Factors 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

STC Supplemental Type Certificate 

TC Type Certificate 

UM Unit Member 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This final rule adds § 25.1302 which 

addresses— 

• Design requirements to minimize 

errors made by the flightcrew and 

enable them to detect and manage their 

errors when the errors occur; 

• Flightcrew limitations and control 

requirements not covered by current 

regulations; 

• Flightcrew interactions with the 

equipment that can be reasonably 

expected in service; 

• Uniform standards that address 

design for flightcrew error in transport 

category airplanes; and 

• Harmonization of the United States 

(U.S.) and EASA airworthiness 

standards. 

II. Background 

Accidents often result from a 

sequence or combination of flightcrew 

errors and safety related events. 

Flightcrews contribute positively to the 

safety of the air transportation system by 

using their ability to assess complex 

situations and make reasoned decisions. 

However, even trained, qualified, 

checked, alert flightcrew members can 

make errors. 

Flightcrew errors that could impact 

safety are often detected and mitigated 

in the normal course of events. 

However, accident analyses have 

identified flightcrew performance and 

error as significant factors in a majority 

of accidents involving transport 

category airplanes. Some errors may be 

influenced by the design of the systems 

the flightcrew uses to operate the 

airplane and by the flightcrew interfaces 

of those systems, even those that are 

carefully designed. 

The design of the flight deck and 

other systems may influence flightcrew 

task performance and may also affect 

the rate of occurrence and effects of 

flightcrew errors. 

Human error is generally 

characterized as a deviation from what 

is considered correct in some context. In 

the hindsight of analysis of accidents, 

incidents, or other events of interest, 

these deviations might include an 

inappropriate action, a difference from 

what is expected in a procedure, a 

mistaken decision, a slip of the fingers 

in typing, an omission of some kind, 

and many other examples. 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) through its Human Factors 

Harmonization Working Group to 

review existing regulations and 

recommend measures to address the 

contribution of design and certification 

of transport category airplane flight 

decks to flightcrew error. The ARAC 

submitted its recommendations to the 

FAA in a report, Human Factors— 

Harmonization Working Group 

(HFHWG) Final Report, dated June 15, 

2004. This final rule implements these 

recommendations. 

The HFHWG acknowledged that 

existing regulations are designed to 

address differing aspects of flightcrew 

performance. Flightcrew capabilities are 

carefully considered through— 

1. Airworthiness standards for the 

issuance of type certificates for 

airplanes (14 CFR part 25); 

2. Airplane operating requirements 

(14 CFR part 121); 

3. Certification and operating 

requirements (14 CFR part 119); and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 25841 

4. Requirements for issuing pilot 

certificates and ratings (14 CFR part 61). 

Taken together, these requirements 

provide a high degree of operational 

safety in the air transportation system. 

They take into consideration equipment 

design, training, qualifications for pilot 

certificates, airplane operations and 

procedures, and the interaction of 

systems, equipment and personnel and 

how each contribute to operating safely 

through risk management. 

However, the HFHWG noted that 

design characteristics can contribute to 

flightcrew error. They recommended 

that more explicit requirements for 

design attributes related to managing 

and avoiding flightcrew error be 

included to augment the existing 

regulations. These requirements are 

codified in new § 25.1302. 

EASA incorporated these same 

regulations in 2006 based on the ARAC 

recommendations. The requirements in 

the new § 25.1302 are harmonized with 

those in the current EASA CS 25.1302 

(Amendment 25/3). Thus, this 

rulemaking eliminates regulatory 

differences between the applicable 

sections of the U.S. and Europe. 

B. Current Requirements 

Several existing regulations apply to 

aspects of flightcrew performance. 

These regulations are listed and 

discussed in the ARAC report, Human 

Factors—Harmonization Working Group 

Final Report, June 15, 2004, which is 

posted on the FAA Web site http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/committees/documents/ 

media/TAEhfhT1-072299.pdf. 

C. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

February 3, 2011 (76 FR 6088) and 

posted the draft of AC 25.1302 for 

comment at the same time. The 

proposed rule augments existing 

generally applicable rules with more 

explicit requirements for design 

attributes related to avoiding and 

managing flightcrew error. The 

comment period closed on April 4, 2011 

for both documents. 

This rule is one aspect of a balanced 

approach involving both design 

approval requirements in the minimum 

airworthiness standards of part 25 and 

requirements for training/licensing/ 

qualification, operations, and 

procedures such as those found in parts 

61, 91, 121, and 135. 

D. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Airbus, the Boeing Company, the Cessna 

Aircraft Company, the Garmin 

Company, the Mitsubishi Company and 

the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA). The commenters 

discussed the following: 

• Airbus had no comments on 

§ 25.1302 and four comments on 

Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1302. 

• Boeing welcomed § 25.1302 and 

had ‘‘no specific comments on the 

proposed rule.’’ 

• ALPA supports the new § 25.1302 

as well as AC 25.1302. 

• Cessna stated the ‘‘content of this 

regulation is indeed good and valuable; 

however demonstrating and 

documenting compliance to the stated 

requirements will very likely impose a 

large burden on the part of the 

applicant.’’ 

• Garmin also commented on cost 

and burden. 

• Both Cessna and Garmin are 

concerned with future delegation of 

findings. 

• Cessna and Mitsubishi both 

commented on the example of an 

intentional error described in the 

preamble. 

None of the commenters opposed the 

proposed rule. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

Cost of Rule 

The economic analysis for the 

proposed rule stated there would be no 

additional costs to transport airplane 

manufacturers as they are already in 

compliance or intend to fully comply 

with the EASA standard. Cessna and 

Garmin commented that the cost impact 

of this rule is not small and 

unimportant. 

Cessna believes substantial 

nonrecurring cost will result from 

demonstrating compliance with this 

rule. In addition to securing the services 

of human factors specialists, substantial 

time and cost will be associated with 

the ‘‘more methodological approach’’ 

specified in Figure 1 of Advisory 

Circular 25.1302. 

The FAA notes all new transport 

airplane type certificate (TC) applicants, 

including Cessna, are expected to seek 

EASA validation. In response to our 

request for clarification, Cessna 

explicitly did not dispute our statement 

in the NPRM that ‘‘The requirements of 

these proposed standards are similar to 

those in the current EASA CS 25.1302. 

Means of compliance are intended to be 

identical.’’ The costs to which Cessna 

refers are unavoidable if Cessna is to 

comply with the current CS 25.1302, as 

well as our rule. There are no 

incremental costs as a result of the 

harmonization of standards itself. 

Accordingly, no change was made to 

this rule as a result of this comment. 

Garmin commented that ‘‘very few 

applicants have truly complied with the 

EASA rule and many manufacturers 

have noted increased cost and 

certification burden in showing 

compliance to the rule. Additionally, 

very few ‘clean sheet’ aircraft 

certifications have been performed since 

2006, while a majority of certification 

projects typically involve type design 

changes to already certified aircraft 

(examples include updating avionics 

systems, engines, drag reduction, 

interior enhancements, etc). In this 

process applicants often are not 

required to comply with the latest 

certification regulations. The FAA’s 

draft AC 25.1302 makes clear the 

proposed rule’s applicability is not 

limited to new TC designs but is also 

intended for STC design changes.’’ 

Garmin believes the FAA may not have 

considered the cost impact of these 

efforts. 

For design changes, increased costs 

result only if both of the following are 

true: 

1. The project would not be expected 

to seek EASA validation, and 

2. The certification basis for the 

design change is updated to include this 

rule. 

The requirements of § 21.101, 

Designation of Applicable Regulations, 

will determine which future design 

changes need to have the certification 

basis updated to include the 

requirements of this final rule. Minor 

changes to the flight deck are not 

considered significant product-level 

changes and would not warrant 

changing the certification basis under 

§ 21.101. Significant changes to the 

flight deck do require an updated 

certification basis; however, costs 

associated with the updated 

certification basis required by § 21.101 

were accounted for in the economic 

evaluation for that rule. 

As noted in the Benefits discussion of 

Type Certification Procedures for 

Changed Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 

2000), compliance is required with all 

later regulations where such compliance 

will contribute materially to the level of 

safety. 

The requirements of § 21.101 do not 

require compliance with later 

regulations under the following 

circumstances: 

(1) If the change in the aeronautical 

product is not significant, 

(2) for those areas or components of 

the product not affected by the change, 

(3) if such compliance would not 

contribute materially to the level of 

safety of the changed product, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) or in the final analysis, if such 

compliance would be impractical; i.e., 

would result in costs that would not 

commensurate with the safety benefit 

that would be derived. 

Therefore, the incremental costs for 

changed products have already been 

justified by the benefits and are not 

attributable to this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, no change was made to 

this rule as a result of this comment. 

Applicability and Scope 

Manufacturers are concerned about 

the broad applicability of the rule. 

Cessna expressed concern about 

documentation needed when the 

applicant seeks a design approval before 

a training program is accepted. Cessna 

stated that in nearly every case, the 

aircraft manufacturer is going to seek 

aircraft certification prior to training 

program acceptance. So, in nearly every 

situation, the original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) would have to 

guess the impacts on training time 

because the training provider is rarely 

involved, or even selected in some 

cases, at that early phase due to 

company confidentiality with new 

products. 

The FAA is aware that applicants may 

have different processes for developing 

a training program while 

simultaneously seeking design approval. 

Given these different processes, the 

applicant only needs to document 

novel, complex, or highly integrated 

design features and any new and 

different design assumptions that have 

the potential to affect training time or 

flightcrew procedures. It is not 

necessary to document the impact on 

training time to receive a design 

approval. However, the close 

relationship between design 

requirements and requirements for 

training, licensing, operations and 

procedures is recognized and is also 

clarified in AC 25.1302. 

Cessna recommended more specific 

information to address the possibility 

that failure conditions may present 

conflicting information on flightdeck 

displays. Cessna states that conflicting 

indications can be addressed by 

accomplishment of appropriate 

flightcrew procedures (i.e., selection of 

reversion display modes). 

Airworthiness design guidance 

regarding information conflicts is 

provided in AC 25–11A and AC 

25.1302. For example, AC 25–11A 

provides guidance on reversion display 

modes. In addition, AC 25.1302 

paragraph 5–8 C 1 (d) states: ‘‘The 

applicant should describe what 

conclusion the flightcrew is expected to 

draw and what action should be taken 

when information on the display 

conflicts with other information on the 

flightdeck either with or without a 

failure.’’ Other examples can be found 

by searching for the word ‘‘failure’’ in 

AC 25.1302. These issues are also 

covered as part of the systems safety 

assessment required by § 25.1309. We 

do agree with Cessna that when the 

flightcrew is fully aware of and 

understands the information conflict, 

crew procedures may be used to help 

flightcrew members make display 

reversion selections or to ignore the 

erroneous information. 

Cessna stated there was no discussion 

regarding the interface with other 

equipment, such as the electronic flight 

bag (EFB). AC 120–76A provides 

guidance for Class 3 EFB’s; however, 

Class 1 and 2 EFB’s are considered 

portable electronic devices that are not 

part of the airplane type design, and 

thus conflicts between information on 

these devices and installed systems are 

not covered under § 25.1302. 

Cessna remarked that § 25.1302(a) 

requires that information on all possible 

functions and features for all flight deck 

equipment be included in the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM). Cessna 

acknowledged the intent of § 25.1302 is 

to require ‘‘necessary information’’ for 

the flightcrew to properly accomplish 

tasks associated with use of equipment, 

which should not require an exhaustive 

discussion of all possible functions or 

uses. Cessna stated that identifying and 

addressing every possible function or 

use of all installed equipment, 

especially for a flight management 

system (FMS) with extensive 

capabilities and features, would result 

in voluminous written material which is 

of little benefit to the flightcrew. 

Cessna suggests limiting the provision 

of information in the AFM to only what 

is necessary for the airplane in its 

operational environment. More 

extensive discussions of ‘‘all features 

and capabilities’’ could be in the 

information provided by the equipment 

manufacturer (e.g., a Pilot’s Guide). 

Cessna is correct that the intent is that 

flightcrews be provided with all 

‘‘necessary information.’’ However, we 

do not agree that § 25.1302(a) requires 

all information to be in the AFM. A 

major function of § 25.1302 is to require 

that installed systems, rather than the 

AFM, provide information needed by 

the crew. Section 25.1302 does not 

require an exhaustive discussion of all 

possible functions or uses, but does 

require a discussion of the tasks 

associated with the intended function as 

further clarified in AC 25.1302. 

Guidance for the level of information of 

the equipment’s intended function and 

types of documents needed to show 

compliance with § 25.1302(a) is 

contained in section 5–3 of AC 25.1302. 

ALPA stated that the provisions 

contained in the NPRM and AC should 

apply to both normal and non-normal 

operations. These provisions call for 

equipment to be designed so the 

flightcrew can safely perform the tasks 

associated with the equipment’s 

intended function in both normal and 

non-normal operations. ALPA noted the 

AC includes this provision, but the 

NPRM does not, and proposes that the 

following text be added to the 

introductory paragraph of § 25.1302: 

‘‘The applicant must show that these 

systems and installed equipment, 

individually and in combination with 

other such systems and equipment, are 

designed so that qualified flightcrew 

members trained in their use can safely 

perform all of the tasks associated with 

the systems’ and equipment’s intended 

function ‘during normal and nonnormal conditions’.’’ 

The FAA notes this issue is addressed 

under the heading, ‘‘Applicability and 

Scope’’ of the NPRM preamble. The 

FAA envisions that equipment will be 

designed so the flightcrew can safely 

perform tasks associated with the 

equipment’s intended function. This 

requirement would apply to operations 

in both normal and non-normal 

conditions, since the requirements of 

§ 25.1302 are generally applicable and 

not limited to specific conditions. 

Therefore, we did not change the rule in 

this regard. 

Ambiguity in the Rule 

Cessna suggested that ‘‘the FAA and 

foreign regulatory agencies have little 

experience in establishing compliance 

with highly subjective criteria such as 

stated in the proposed rule, and this 

will likely lead to ambiguity and 

differences of opinion among the 

agencies and individual offices within 

the agencies.’’ 

The FAA notes that the rule, its 

guidance material, and harmonization 

with EASA’s regulations will provide 

more structure, reduce ambiguity, and 

help resolve differences of opinion. It is 

the lack of any criteria that leads to 

differences. The methods of compliance 

established in AC 25.1302 provide 

acceptable ways for applicants to 

address the performance-based aspects 

of the rule. As is often the case, we 

expect that as the FAA and industry 

gain experience with § 25.1302, those 

methods of compliance will be further 

refined. The FAA did not change the 

rule language based on the above 

comments. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 25843 

Delegation and Oversight 

Both Cessna and Garmin expressed 

concerns about delegation and oversight 

of proposed § 25.1302. Cessna saw no 

clear path for delegation of compliance 

findings for the requirements of 

§ 25.1302 to authorized individuals or 

organizations. No Unit Member (UM) or 

Designated Engineering Representative 

(DER) chart exists for Human Factors 

(HF), so Cessna assumed either there 

would be no delegation in this area or 

the delegation would be accomplished 

through creative use of the ‘‘special’’ 

delegation on other systems charts. 

Cessna stated, ‘‘the FAA has not been 

willing to approve this delegation for 

HF specialists in the past,’’ and 

suggested ‘‘the FAA needs a well 

thought out approach to HF issues prior 

to simply adopting this regulation for 

harmonization with EASA.’’ 

Cessna further stated in a follow-up 

discussion that the proposed FAA 

requirements and guidance for § 25.1302 

are similar to those of EASA, but not 

identical. Cessna stated EASA has a 

process for delegating findings to the 

FAA or a designee, but the FAA 

currently lacks a delegation process and 

this will result in additional costs for 

this rule ‘‘should the applicant have to 

wait for availability of limited FAA 

human factors specialists in finding 

compliance.’’ 

Garmin stated that there is a question 

of designee oversight and authority. It is 

not clear who is delegated to make 

findings of compliance in this proposed 

rule or corresponding AC. 

The FAA recognizes the need to plan 

an approach for delegation and 

oversight. The FAA will strive to work 

with industry and designees to develop 

the experience necessary to delegate in 

this area. This may initially result in 

limitations requiring the FAA’s review 

of designee recommendations before we 

fully delegate the findings. Until the 

FAA and designees have gained 

experience in applying the standards 

and recommending findings of 

compliance, we will not fully delegate 

the findings. This is typical of all new 

airworthiness standards. 

We are currently defining the roles 

and responsibilities for all HF 

specialists in the FAA Aircraft 

Certification Service. These actions will 

also aid in determining the technical 

roles and responsibilities of potential 

HF designees. When the work is 

completed, we intend to develop a plan 

for formalizing HF delegation. Until that 

time, we expect that formal findings of 

compliance to § 25.1302 will be handled 

by limiting designees approval authority 

until they have established their 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to make 

HF findings. We have not changed the 

rule language based on this comment. 

We also note that whatever the costs 

incurred owing to initially limited 

delegation, these costs are unavoidable 

if the applicant is to comply with the 

current CS 25.1302, as well as our rule. 

There are no incremental costs as a 

result of the harmonization of standards 

itself. The existence of a delegation 

program is desirable for many reasons, 

including reduced certification burden 

to both the FAA and manufacturers. 

However, a delegation program does not 

create any incremental costs or reduce 

savings that may result from 

harmonization of the FAA standards 

with EASA standards. 

Redundancy of Rule 

Cessna stated the proposed rule is 

redundant for certain controls already 

installed in the cockpit. The proposed 

rule should clarify that controls 

addressed in §§ 25.777 and 25.779 are 

excluded from the requirements of 

§ 25.1302. 

Section 25.1302 is generally 

applicable and not intended to replace 

more specific rules. We consider 

§§ 25.777, 25.779, and 25.1302 to be 

consistent and mutually supportive. We 

do not believe that showing compliance 

with §§ 25.777 or 25.779 would in any 

way conflict with the requirements of 

§ 25.1302. However, showing 

compliance with those specific rules is 

not sufficient, by itself, to show that 

flightcrew errors associated with 

controls have been properly addressed 

as required by § 25.1302. Therefore, 

compliance with § 25.1302 for flight 

deck controls still must be shown. 

Equipment Behavior and Pilot 

Background 

Cessna commented the proposal 

appears to ignore pilot background. 

Many pilots express different 

perceptions of the same equipment 

based on their prior background. Cessna 

believes this is a significant contributor 

to their perception of equipment 

function and operation. If the intent of 

the ‘‘qualified flightcrew’’ in 

§ 25.1301(c)(1) is to eliminate prior bias 

from earlier training and/or operation of 

other systems, it is not clear. Cessna also 

made a related statement on error 

management and prior training and 

recommended a clear statement of the 

level of training presumed. 

While we understand the concern, 

this rule is not intended to directly 

address prior bias from earlier training 

or operation of other systems. This rule 

assumes at least the minimum 

flightcrew requirements for the intended 

operation, as discussed at the beginning 

of subchapter 5–2 of AC 25.1302. We do 

not intend that the design must 

compensate for deficiencies in 

flightcrew training or experience. Given 

the qualification assumption, the 

behavior of the installed equipment 

must be predictable and unambiguous 

to the flightcrew. AC 25.1322–1, chapter 

5–6 also provides additional 

information regarding system behavior. 

Intentional Errors 

Cessna took issue with the preamble 

statement, ‘‘An example of an 

intentional error that might occur would 

be a situation where an alert occurs, but 

the flightcrew does not perform the 

associated procedure because they 

believe it to be a nuisance alert.’’ In this 

situation, § 25.1302(d) requires the 

applicant to show that this error can be 

detected. Cessna interpreted this 

statement to mean it is an ‘‘error’’ to 

ignore something intentionally, and 

thus the applicant has to make sure the 

pilot detects and manages the fact that 

he or she is ignoring something 

intentionally. Cessna suggested that the 

statement should focus on reducing the 

number of nuisance alerts. Mitsubishi 

Aircraft Corporation also commented on 

the same example and suggested 

deleting the sentence and referring to 

§ 25.1322. 

We agree with Cessna that not 

responding to a valid alert is an error. 

In this example, the flightcrew ignores 

the alert since they believe it is not 

valid. Cessna is also correct in stating 

that the design must provide a means to 

allow the flightcrew to manage the error 

as stated in § 25.1302(d). In response to 

Cessna’s comment that the rule should 

promote the reduction of nuisance 

alerts, we note that this requirement is 

already included in §§ 25.1322(d) and 

25.1322(d)(1). 

We do not agree with Mitsubishi that 

the sentence should be deleted since 

this is a good illustration of an 

intentional error. Mitsubishi requested 

to ‘‘instead, cover the proposed rule 

with the existing regulation and 

statement from § 25.1322(d).’’ The error 

discussed in the preamble is the 

intentional act of disregarding a valid 

alert. This sentence is still warranted to 

illustrate the distinction for the 

appropriate application of this 

regulation. The example in this sentence 

demonstrates the flightcrew’s 

misinterpretation of a valid alert as 

being a nuisance alert (i.e., it is invalid) 

which may be caused by design 

deficiencies that lead to frequent 

nuisance alerts. This is one underlying 

design deficiency that § 25.1302 is 

intended to address. While this 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

particular example relates to nuisance 

alerts, there may be other design 

characteristics that lead flightcrew 

members to make other kinds of 

intentional errors. 

No changes to the rule text were made 

based on these comments. 

Type of Flightcrew Participation 

ALPA suggested the rule promote 

design for active flightcrew 

participation, as opposed to design for 

passive flightcrew involvement, i.e., 

systems that only monitor operation. 

ALPA suggested keeping the flightcrew 

actively involved in the process of 

controlling all the aircraft systems, 

equipment, and the aircraft itself, so that 

they understand the situation better. 

Active designs would enable the 

flightcrew to detect failures better and 

intervene quicker in airplane operation. 

While it may be desirable for the 

flightcrew to be ‘‘actively involved’’ 

with some systems, the FAA believes it 

is not appropriate to require ‘‘active 

involvement’’ for all systems and 

equipment. Such a mandated 

involvement may impose a significant 

workload on the flightcrew. However, 

the FAA agrees the design should 

enable the flightcrew to understand the 

situation, detect failures, and determine 

the need for intervention in a timely 

manner. Unrelated to the ALPA 

comment, the FAA clarified the intent 

of this rule for controls and information 

with the following change (shown in 

italic) to the rule language in this same 

section: ‘‘Flight deck controls must be 

installed to allow accomplishment of all 

the tasks required to safely perform the 

equipment’s intended function and 

information must be provided to the 

flightcrew that is necessary to 

accomplish the defined tasks.’’ This 

wording change provides clarity while 

remaining in harmony with the intent of 

the EASA CS 25.1302(a) language. 

Visibility of System and Equipment 

Displays 

ALPA commented that AC 25.1302 

discusses the need for the system and 

equipment displays to be visible in all 

lighting conditions. ALPA supports this 

and recommends revising 

§ 25.1302(b)(1) as follows: ‘‘Be provided 

in a clear and unambiguous manner at 

a resolution and precision appropriate 

to the task in all lighting conditions and 

in all phases of flight (additions in 

italicized text).’’ 

The FAA generally agrees with the 

ALPA recommendation; however, the 

rule already requires a ‘‘clear and 

unambiguous manner at a resolution 

and precision appropriate to the task’’ in 

all phases of flight, which would 

indicate the flightcrew would need 

sufficient lighting for controls and 

information to be clear and 

unambiguous. This issue is covered in 

AC 25.1302. No change to the rule 

language was made as a result of this 

comment. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, this Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impact of the 

final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. 

The reasoning for this determination 

follows similar logic used in the NPRM. 

The final rule, § 25.1302, addresses 

human factors as they apply to installed 

equipment on the flight deck because 

crew limitations and design-related 

errors are not currently covered by the 

regulations in so specific a manner. The 

final rule will harmonize with EASA’s 

CS 25.1302, which is already in effect 

and for which there is no counterpart in 

the current CFR. This final rule will 

require compliance from manufacturers 

and modifiers of transport category 

aircraft. A review of current 

manufacturers has revealed they already 

meet or intend to meet the EASA 

standard as it exists in CS 25.1302. The 

compliance of manufacturers with the 

EASA requirements increase safety by 

(1) reducing the likelihood of flight crew 

errors and (2) enabling detection and 

recovery from errors that do occur, or 

mitigating their effects. Since the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

the EASA requirements, there will be no 

additional safety benefits from 

compliance with this rule. And since 

the requirements in the final rule are 

identical to those in CS 25.1302, the 

manufacturers will incur no additional 

costs. We received no comments on the 

NPRM regarding a similar 

determination. Although there are no 

additional costs or benefits accruing to 

manufacturers as a result of this final 

rule, the rule does promote the social 

benefit of international cooperation 

between the FAA and EASA. The FAA 

therefore has determined that this final 

rule has benefits that justify the costs 

and does not warrant a full regulatory 

evaluation. 

The FAA has also determined that 

this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 25845 

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. 

The FAA believes that this final rule 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reason: As noted above, 

this final rule will not entail additional 

costs to manufacturers as they are 

already in compliance or intend to fully 

comply with the EASA standard. We 

received no comments from small 

entities on the same determination 

made in the NPRM. Therefore as the 

FAA Administrator, I certify that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will promote 

international trade by harmonizing with 

corresponding European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) regulations. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. To the extent you may have 

comments on the information collection 

burdens associated with the aircraft 

certification application process, please 

direct those comments to the 

information collection associated with 

OMB Control Number 2120–0018. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform its regulations to International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

to the maximum extent practicable. The 

FAA has reviewed the corresponding 

ICAO Standards and found no ICAO 

standards comparable to § 25.1302. 

F. 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 FAA 

Order 1050.1E, Chapter 3, Paragraph 

312d and involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

G. 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, the FAA requested 

comments on whether the final rule 

should apply differently to intrastate 

operations in Alaska. The agency did 

not receive any comments and has 

determined, based on the administrative 

record of this rulemaking, that there is 

no need to make any regulatory 

distinctions applicable to intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency 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. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. The 

agency determined that this rule is 

adopted under public participation with 

an open exchange of all stakeholders. 

The rule is tailored to impose the least 

burden on society while obtaining 

regulatory objectives. It is a carefully 

written rule which harmonizes with the 

existing EASA rule and minimizes the 

cumulative effects of new and existing 

rules in human factors. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order (EO) 13609, 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 

2012) promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has 

determined that this action would 

eliminate differences between U.S. 

aviation standards and those of other 

civil aviation authorities by 

harmonizing EASA CS 25.1302 with 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

this new rule. Transport Canada will 

also harmonize with this new rule after 

it is issued. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document my be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s 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.). 

C. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Human 

factors, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702 and 44704 

■ 2. Add § 25.1302 to subpart F to read 

as follows: 

§ 25.1302 Installed systems and 

equipment for use by the flightcrew. 

This section applies to installed 

systems and equipment intended for 

flightcrew members’ use in operating 

the airplane from their normally seated 

positions on the flight deck. The 

applicant must show that these systems 

and installed equipment, individually 

and in combination with other such 

systems and equipment, are designed so 

that qualified flightcrew members 

trained in their use can safely perform 

all of the tasks associated with the 

systems’ and equipment’s intended 

functions. Such installed equipment 

and systems must meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Flight deck controls must be 

installed to allow accomplishment of all 

the tasks required to safely perform the 

equipment’s intended function, and 

information must be provided to the 

flightcrew that is necessary to 

accomplish the defined tasks. 

(b) Flight deck controls and 

information intended for the 

flightcrew’s use must: 

(1) Be provided in a clear and 

unambiguous manner at a resolution 

and precision appropriate to the task; 

(2) Be accessible and usable by the 

flightcrew in a manner consistent with 

the urgency, frequency, and duration of 

their tasks; and 

(3) Enable flightcrew awareness, if 

awareness is required for safe operation, 

of the effects on the airplane or systems 

resulting from flightcrew actions. 

(c) Operationally-relevant behavior of 

the installed equipment must be: 

(1) Predictable and unambiguous; and 

(2) Designed to enable the flightcrew 

to intervene in a manner appropriate to 

the task. 

(d) To the extent practicable, installed 

equipment must incorporate means to 

enable the flightcrew to manage errors 

resulting from the kinds of flightcrew 

interactions with the equipment that 

can be reasonably expected in service. 

This paragraph does not apply to any of 

the following: 

(1) Skill-related errors associated with 

manual control of the airplane; 

(2) Errors that result from decisions, 

actions, or omissions committed with 

malicious intent; 

(3) Errors arising from a 

crewmember’s reckless decisions, 

actions, or omissions reflecting a 

substantial disregard for safety; and 

(4) Errors resulting from acts or 

threats of violence, including actions 

taken under duress. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 

2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10554 Filed 5–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0374; Special 

Conditions No. 25–488–SC] 

Special Conditions: Airbus, Model 

A340–600 Series Airplanes; Lower 

Deck Crew Rest Compartments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special condition; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Airbus Model A340 series 

airplanes. These airplanes, as modified 

by Flight Structures, Inc., will have a 

novel or unusual design feature 

associated with the installation of lower 

deck crew rest (LDCR) compartments. 

The LDCR compartment is novel in 

terms of part 25 in that it will be located 

under the passenger cabin floor in the 

aft cargo compartment of Airbus Model 

A340–200 series airplanes. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These 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: The effective date of these 

special conditions is April 29, 2013. We 

must receive your comments by June 17, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2013–0374 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES