6088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

to the common defense and security or 

the public health and safety. 

Under Section 161A of the AEA, the 

Commission is authorized to approve 

licensees’ and certificate holders’ 

possession of enhanced weapons as part 

of a protective strategy for defending 

NRC-regulated facilities and radioactive 

material from malevolent acts. 

Previously, most NRC licensees and 

certificate holders were barred under 

Federal law from possessing such 

weapons. The NRC is publishing in the 

Proposed Rules section of today’s 

Federal Register a proposed rule titled 

‘‘Enhanced Weapons, Firearms 

Background Checks, and Security Event 

Notifications (Docket ID: NRC–2011– 

0018).’’ The NRC is proposing to add 

requirements to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), in Section 

73.18, for licensees and certificate 

holders to apply to the NRC to obtain 

enhanced weapons (see 10 CFR 73.2 of 

the proposed rule for a definition of 

enhanced weapons). Under 10 CFR 

73.18(f), licensees and certificate 

holders applying to the NRC to possess 

and use enhanced weapons would be 

required to include a completed WSA as 

part of their application. 

The draft WSA provides a 

methodology to evaluate and review the 

safety impacts arising from the proposed 

use of enhanced weapons on licensee 

and certificate holder facilities and 

personnel, and on adjoining public 

areas. The NRC developed the draft 

WSA under contract with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Protective Design 

Center (USACE–PDC), in Omaha, 

Nebraska. The draft WSA is identified 

as document number ‘‘USACE PDC NRC 

TR 06–10.1 through 10.5.’’ When 

submitted to the NRC as part of an 

application to obtain enhanced 

weapons, a completed WSA would be 

controlled as Safeguards Information or 

classified National Security Information, 

as appropriate, because of the sensitive 

nature of the information contained in 

the WSA. 

The evaluation of the appropriateness 

of specific types of enhanced weapons 

at NRC-regulated facilities is a new 

effort for the NRC. As part of the 

development process, the NRC staff 

provided a draft of the WSA to three 

NRC licensees (two power reactor 

licensees and a Category I strategic 

special nuclear material licensee) as part 

of voluntary pilot program to identify 

any major challenges to using the WSA 

template. The results of the pilot 

program have been incorporated into 

the draft WSA being submitted for 

public comment. 

The NRC is seeking comments on 

Volumes 1 through 3 of the draft WSA 

from the public, licensees, certificate 

holders, and other stakeholders. The 

NRC staff also intends to hold a public 

meeting on the draft WSA in 

conjunction with other discussions on 

the proposed rule and the supporting 

draft guidance documents. The public 

meeting is intended to answer questions 

on the draft WSA and facilitate 

commenters’ submission of written 

comments. The NRC does not intend to 

receive oral comments on the draft 

WSA. 

The NRC will publish a separate 

notice on the date and location of this 

public meeting in the Federal Register. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day 

of January 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Richard P. Correia, 

Director, Division of Security Policy, Office 

of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1781 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

13 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket No.: 110119042–1041–01] 

RIN 0610–XA04 

Request for Comments: Review and 

Improvement of EDA’s Regulations 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2011– 

1937 beginning on page 5501 in the 

issue of Tuesday, February 1, 2011 make 

the following correction: 

On page 5503, in the first column, in 

the 14th line, ‘‘March 14, 2011’’ should 

read ‘‘March 9, 2011’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–1937 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1175; Notice No. 11– 

02] 

RIN 2120–AJ83 

Installed Systems and Equipment for 

Use by the Flightcrew 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend 

design requirements in the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes to minimize the 

occurrence of design-related flightcrew 

errors. The new design requirements 

would enable a flightcrew to detect and 

manage their errors when the errors 

occur. Adopting this proposal would 

eliminate regulatory differences 

between the airworthiness standards of 

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

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) without affecting current 

industry design practices. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–1175 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6089 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Loran Haworth, 

Airplane and Flightcrew Interface 

Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1133; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320, e-mail 

Loran.Haworth@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this 

proposed rule, contact Doug Anderson, 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel 

(ANM–7), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2166; facsimile 

425–227–1007; e-mail 

Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble, under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for the design and 

performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

Background 

Airworthiness standards for type 

certification of transport category 

airplanes for products certified in the 

U.S. are in part 25. EASA’s Certification 

Specifications for Large Aeroplanes 

(CS–25) are the corresponding 

airworthiness standards for products 

certified in Europe. While part 25 and 

CS–25 are similar, they differ in several 

respects. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) through its Human Factors 

Harmonization Working Group to 

review existing regulations and 

recommend measures to address the 

contribution of design and certification 

of transport category airplane flight 

decks to flight crew error. The ARAC 

submitted its recommendations to the 

FAA in a report, Human Factors— 

Harmonization Working Group Final 

Report, dated June 15, 2004. A copy of 

the report is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. This proposed rule is a 

result of this harmonization effort. 

Managing Flightcrew Performance 

There are several regulations that are 

designed to address differing aspects of 

flight crew performance. Flightcrew 

capabilities are carefully considered 

through— 

(1) Airworthiness standards for the 

issuance of type certificates for 

airplanes; 

(2) Airplane operating requirements 

(part 121); 

(3) Certification and operating 

requirements (part 119); and 

(4) Requirements for issuing pilot 

certificates and ratings (part 61). 

Taken together, these requirements 

provide a high degree of operating safety 

in the air transportation system. These 

requirements take into consideration 

equipment design, training, 

qualifications for pilot certificates, 

airplane operations and procedures, and 

the interaction of systems, equipment 

and personnel and how each contribute 

to operating safely through risk 

management. 

The proposed requirements in 

§ 25.1302 would augment existing 

regulations with more explicit 

requirements for design attributes 

related to managing and avoiding flight 

crew error. Design characteristics can 

contribute to flight crew error. 

EASA incorporated this rule in 2006 

based on the ARAC recommendations. 

U.S. and European airworthiness 

requirements are unharmonized at the 

present time, and will continue to be 

unharmonized if the FAA does not issue 

a final rule on this subject. The 

requirements of these proposed 

standards are similar to those in the 

current EASA CS 25.1302 (Amendment 

25/3). Means of compliance are 

intended to be identical. 

Current Requirements 

There are several regulations that 

apply to aspects of flight crew 

performance. These regulations are 

listed and discussed in the ARAC 

report, Human Factors—Harmonization 

Working Group Final Report, June 15, 

2004, which is posted on the Web site 

http://www.regulations.gov (in the same 

docket as this proposed rulemaking). 

The proposed § 25.1302 would 

augment these existing generally 

applicable rules with more explicit 

requirements for design attributes 

related to avoiding and managing 

flightcrew error. Other ways to avoid 

and manage flightcrew error are 

regulated through requirements for 

licensing and qualifying flightcrew 

members and aircraft operations. Taken 

together, these complementary 

approaches provide a high degree of 

safety. 

This complementary approach to 

avoiding and managing flightcrew error 

is important. It recognizes that 

equipment design, training, qualifying 

through licensing, establishing correct 

operations and procedures, all 

contribute to safety by avoiding or 

minimizing risk. An appropriate balance 

is needed among them. There have been 

cases in the past where design 

characteristics known to contribute to 

flightcrew error were accepted, with the 

rationale that training or procedures 

would mitigate that risk. We now know 

that such an approach may be 

inappropriate. Conversely, it would also 

be inappropriate to require equipment 

design to always provide complete risk 

avoidance or mitigation, because such 

an approach may not be practicable in 

some cases, and may even create new 

risks. 

Therefore, a proper balance is needed 

among design approval requirements in 

the minimum airworthiness standards 

of part 25 and requirements for training/ 

licensing/qualification, operations, and 

procedures. We have developed the 

requirements proposed here with the 

intent of achieving that balance. 

General Discussion of the Proposal 

Flightcrews contribute positively to 

the safety of the air transportation 

system using their ability to assess 

complex situations and make reasoned 

decisions. However, even trained, 

qualified, checked, alert flightcrew 

members can make errors. Some errors 

may be influenced by the design of 

airplane systems and their flightcrew 

interfaces. Flightcrew errors that could 

impact safety are often detected and/or 

mitigated in the normal course of 

events. However, accident analyses have 

identified flightcrew performance and 

error as significant factors in a majority 

of accidents involving transport 

category airplanes. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
6090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Accidents often result from a 

sequence, or combination, of flightcrew 

errors and safety related events. The 

design of the flight deck and other 

systems can influence flightcrew task 

performance and may also affect the rate 

of occurrence and effects of flightcrew 

errors. 

Human error is generally 

characterized as a deviation from what 

is considered correct in some context. In 

the hindsight of analysis of accidents, 

incidents, or other events of interest, 

these deviations might include: an 

inappropriate action, a difference from 

what is expected in a procedure, a 

mistaken decision, a slip of the fingers 

in typing, an omission of some kind, 

and many other examples. 

Applicability and Scope 

The introductory sentence of 

proposed § 25.1302 states that the 

provisions of the section apply to each 

item of installed equipment intended for 

use by the flightcrew in operating the 

airplane from their normally seated 

positions on the flight deck. An example 

of such installed equipment would be a 

display that provides the flightcrew 

with information enabling them to 

navigate the airplane. 

As used in this section, the term 

‘‘flightcrew members’’ is intended to 

include any or all individuals 

comprising the minimum flightcrew as 

determined for compliance with 

§ 25.1523. The phrase ‘‘From their 

normally seated position’’ means that, to 

use the equipment addressed by this 

proposed rule, flightcrew members are 

seated at their normal duty stations for 

operating the airplane. The proposed 

rule would not apply to such items as 

certain circuit breakers or maintenance 

controls intended for use by the 

maintenance crew or by the flightcrew 

when the airplane is not being operated. 

The proposal would require that 

installed equipment ‘‘individually and 

in combination with other such 

equipment’’ must be designed so that 

qualified flightcrew members who are 

trained and checked in its use can safely 

perform their tasks associated with the 

intended function of the installed 

equipment. The quoted phrase means 

that the applicant must consider the use 

of the equipment in context with other 

installed equipment to show 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposal. The installed equipment 

may not prevent other equipment from 

complying with these requirements. As 

an example, applicants may not design 

a display so that the information it 

provides is either inconsistent with or 

conflicts with information from other 

installed equipment. 

The provisions of this proposed rule 

presume that a qualified flightcrew is 

trained and checked to use the installed 

equipment, as required by the 

operational rules. If the applicant seeks 

a design approval before a training 

program is accepted, the applicant 

should document any novel, complex or 

highly integrated design features and 

any different or new assumptions 

related to the design that have the 

potential to affect training time or 

flightcrew procedures (for example, 

flightcrew interpretation, response, or 

abilities). 

The FAA envisions for the proposed 

requirement that equipment be designed 

so the flightcrew can safely perform 

tasks associated with the equipment’s 

intended function. This requirement 

would apply for operations in both 

normal and non-normal conditions. 

Tasks intended for performance under 

non-normal conditions are generally 

those prescribed by non-normal 

(including emergency) flightcrew 

procedures in the airplane flight 

manual. The phrase ‘‘safely perform 

their tasks’’ describes one of the safety 

objectives of this proposed requirement. 

The proposal requires the equipment be 

designed to enable the flightcrew to 

perform their tasks with sufficient 

accuracy and in a timely manner, 

without unduly interfering with other 

required tasks. The phrase ‘‘Tasks 

associated with its intended function’’ 

would include those tasks required to 

operate the equipment, such as entering 

flight plan data into a flight 

management system, and tasks for 

which the equipment’s intended 

function provides support, such as 

setting ‘‘bugs’’ for minimum and critical 

speeds to support airspeed control by 

the flightcrew. 

Controls and Information 

The proposed § 25.1302(a) would 

require the applicant to install 

appropriate controls and provide 

necessary information for any flight 

deck equipment used by the flightcrew 

to accomplish tasks associated with 

their intended function as identified in 

the first paragraph of § 25.1302. To 

show compliance, the applicant must 

identify the tasks associated with the 

intended function of installed 

equipment, and show that the controls 

for the equipment, and the information 

provided for operation of the 

equipment, are adequate to enable the 

flightcrew members to perform the 

identified tasks. The FAA is proposing 

these requirements because they are not 

adequately reflected in other parts of 14 

CFR part 25 for the specific subject of 

human factors. 

The proposed § 25.1302(b) addresses 

requirements for flight deck controls 

and information to ensure that the 

flightcrew can accomplish their tasks. 

The intent is to ensure that the design 

of control and information devices 

makes them usable by the flightcrew. 

This requirement would reduce designinduced flightcrew errors by imposing 

design requirements on the presentation 

of information on the flight deck and on 

flight deck controls. Proposed 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) specify 

these design requirements. 

Design requirements for information 

and controls are necessary to: 

• Properly support the flightcrew in 

doing their tasks. 

• Make available to the flightcrew 

appropriate, effective means to carry out 

planned actions. 

• Enable the flightcrew to have 

appropriate feedback information about 

the effects of their actions on the 

airplane. 

The proposed § 25.1302(b)(1) 

specifically requires that controls and 

information intended for the flightcrew 

must be provided in a clear and 

unambiguous manner, at a resolution 

and precision appropriate to the task. As 

applied to information, ‘‘clear and 

unambiguous’’ means that it can be: 

• Perceived correctly (is legible). 

• Understood in the context of 

flightcrew tasks associated with the 

intended functions of the equipment 

such that the flightcrew can perform the 

associated tasks. 

The proposed requirement that 

controls must be provided in a clear and 

unambiguous manner means the crew 

must be able to correctly and reliably 

identify the control by using control 

distinctiveness such as control shape, 

color, and location. This requirement is 

separate from, and in addition to, the 

requirement for control labeling in 

§ 25.1555(a). The proposed 

§ 25.1302(b)(1) also requires that the 

information or control be provided, or 

operate, at a level of detail and accuracy 

appropriate to accomplishing the task. 

Insufficient resolution or precision 

would prevent the flightcrew from 

performing the task adequately. On the 

other hand, excessive resolution could 

result in poor readability or the 

implication that the task should be 

carried out more precisely than is 

actually necessary, thus making the task 

more difficult. 

The proposed § 25.1302(b)(2) requires 

that controls and information be 

accessible and usable by the flightcrew 

in a manner consistent with the 

urgency, frequency, and duration of 

their tasks. Controls used more 

frequently or urgently must be readily 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6091 

accessed, or require fewer steps or 

actions to perform the task. Less 

accessible controls may be acceptable if 

they are needed less frequently or 

urgently. Controls used less frequently 

or urgently should not interfere with 

those used more frequently or urgently. 

Similarly, tasks requiring a longer time 

for interaction with the system should 

not interfere with accessibility to 

information required for urgent or 

frequent tasks. 

The proposed § 25.1302(b)(3) requires 

that equipment must present 

information advising the flightcrew of 

the effects of their actions on the 

airplane or systems, if safe operation 

depends on their awareness of those 

effects. The intent is that the flightcrew 

be aware of system or airplane states 

resulting from their actions, and thus be 

able to detect and correct their own 

errors. This subparagraph is included 

because new technology enables new 

kinds of flightcrew interfaces that 

previous requirements do not address. 

Equipment Behavior 

The proposed § 25.1302(c) requires 

that installed equipment be designed so 

that equipment behavior that is 

operationally relevant to flightcrew 

tasks is: 

• Predictable and unambiguous. 

• Designed to enable the flightcrew to 

intervene in a manner appropriate to the 

task (and intended function). 

‘‘Equipment behavior’’ in the context 

of this proposal refers to the function of 

the equipment as perceived by a 

flightcrew member. Although improved 

flight deck technologies involving 

integrated and complex information and 

control systems have increased safety 

and performance, they have also 

introduced the need to ensure proper 

interaction between the flightcrew and 

those systems. Service experience has 

shown that some equipment behavior, 

especially behavior of some automated 

systems, is very complex. Some system 

behavior is dependent on logical states 

or mode transitions not well understood 

or expected by the flightcrew. Such 

design characteristics can confuse the 

flightcrew and have contributed to 

incidents and accidents. 

‘‘Operationally-relevant behavior’’ is 

the combined effect of the equipment’s 

logic, controls, and displayed 

information on the flightcrews’ 

awareness or perception of the system’s 

operation, which affects the flightcrews’ 

planning or operation of the system. The 

intent here is to distinguish such system 

behavior from the functional logic 

within the system design, much of 

which the flightcrew does not know or 

need to know and which should be 

transparent to them. 

The proposed § 25.1302(c)(1) requires 

that system behavior be such that a 

qualified flightcrew can know what the 

system is doing and why. It requires that 

operationally relevant system behavior 

be ‘‘predictable and unambiguous.’’ This 

means that a crew can retain enough 

information about what their action, or 

a changing situation, will cause the 

system to do under foreseeable 

circumstances so that they can operate 

the system safely. One reason that 

system behavior must be unambiguous 

is that crew actions may have different 

effects on the airplane depending on its 

current state or operational 

circumstances. For example, autopilot 

response to selection or arming of a 

different mode can depend on which 

mode is currently active. In such a case 

the autopilot must be designed to avoid 

ambiguity about the result of possible 

flightcrew selections. 

The proposed § 25.1302(c)(2) requires 

that the design enable the flightcrew to 

determine a need for, choose, and take 

appropriate action, or to change or alter 

an input to the system, in a manner 

appropriate to the task, and to monitor 

the system and airplane response to the 

action. For example, to respond 

appropriately to a new Air Traffic 

Control (ATC) altitude clearance, the 

flightcrew needs information about the 

active flight guidance and flight 

management modes, what means are 

available to comply with the new ATC 

requirement given the current airplane 

and system states, how to select those 

means, and how to determine that the 

expected response is being achieved. 

Error Management 

The proposed § 25.1302(d) addresses 

the reality that even well-trained, 

checked, proficient flightcrews using 

well-designed systems will make errors. 

The proposal requires that equipment be 

designed to enable the flightcrew to 

manage such errors. For the purpose of 

this rule, errors ‘‘resulting from 

flightcrew interaction with the 

equipment’’ are errors that are in some 

way attributable to, or related to, design 

of the controls, behavior of the 

equipment, or information presented. 

Examples of designs or information that 

could cause errors are complex 

indications and controls that are 

inconsistent with each other or with 

other systems on the flight deck. 

Another example is the presentation of 

a procedure for the crew to follow that 

is inconsistent with the design of the 

equipment. Such errors are considered 

to be within the scope of this proposed 

requirement. 

The proposed requirement that a 

design enable the flightcrew to ‘‘manage 

errors’’ means that the design meets the 

following criteria to the extent 

practicable: 

• Flightcrew must be able to detect 

and/or recover from errors resulting 

from their interaction with the 

equipment. 

• Effects of such flightcrew errors on 

the airplane functions or capabilities 

must be evident to the flightcrew, and 

continued safe flight and landing must 

be possible. 

• Flightcrew errors must be 

discouraged by switch guards, 

interlocks, confirmation actions, or 

other effective means, and 

• Effects of errors with potential 

safety consequences must be precluded 

by system logic or other aspects of 

system design that will detect and 

correct such errors. 

The requirement to manage errors 

applies to those errors that can be 

reasonably expected in service from 

qualified, trained and checked 

flightcrews. Errors ‘‘reasonably expected 

in service’’ include those that have 

occurred in service in the past with 

similar or comparable equipment. It also 

includes errors that can be predicted to 

occur based on general experience and 

on knowledge of human performance 

capabilities and limitations as they 

relate to use of the types of controls, 

information, or system logic being 

assessed. 

The proposed § 25.1302(d) includes 

the following statement: ‘‘This 

paragraph (d) does not apply to * * * 

skill-related errors associated with 

manual control of the airplane.’’ That 

statement means to exclude errors 

resulting from flightcrew lack of 

proficiency in controlling flight path 

and attitude with the primary roll, 

pitch, yaw, and thrust controls. These 

issues are considered adequately 

addressed by existing requirements, 

such as part 25 Subpart B and 

§ 25.671(a), which require that each 

control and control system operate with 

the ease, smoothness, and positiveness 

appropriate to its function. We do not 

intend that equipment design be 

required to compensate for deficiencies 

in flightcrew training or experience. 

This proposed rule assumes at least the 

minimum flightcrew requirements for 

the intended operation, as discussed 

previously. 

This proposal only concerns the 

management of errors resulting from 

flightcrew decisions, acts or omissions 

that occur when they are operating the 

airplane in ‘‘good faith.’’ Therefore, this 

paragraph contains exceptions for 

actions that are intentionally taken with 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
6092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

malicious or purely contrary intent (that 

is, actions intended to have incorrect or 

unsafe results); for actions arising from 

a crewmember’s substantial disregard 

for safety (that is, reckless conduct); and 

for actions taken as a result of acts or 

threats of violence (for example, actions 

taken under duress). It is unreasonable 

to expect that airplane designers would 

be able to anticipate and prevent these 

types of actions. The EASA regulation, 

CS–25.1302, allows applicants to 

assume that the flightcrew is ‘‘acting in 

good faith.’’ While our proposed 

§ 25.1302(d) replaces this term with a 

more detailed enumeration of 

exceptions, our intent is the same, and 

the regulatory effect would be 

harmonized. 

On the other hand, pilots do 

occasionally take erroneous actions that, 

while intentional, are not intended to 

have unsafe consequences; that is, they 

are ‘‘acting in good faith.’’ An example 

of an intentional error that might occur 

would be a situation where an alert 

occurs, but the flightcrew does not 

perform the associated procedure 

because they believe it to be a nuisance 

alert. In this situation § 25.1302(d) 

requires the applicant to show that this 

error can be detected and managed by 

the flightcrew. 

Requiring errors to be manageable 

only ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ 

addresses both economic and 

operational practicability. We want to 

avoid imposing requirements without 

considering economic feasibility and 

commensurate safety benefits. We also 

need to avoid introducing into the 

design any error management features 

that would inappropriately impede 

flightcrew actions or decisions in 

normal or non-normal conditions. For 

example, we do not intend to require so 

many guards or interlocks on the means 

to shut down an engine that the 

flightcrew would be unable to do this 

reliably within the available time. We 

do not intend to reduce the authority or 

means for the flightcrew to intervene or 

carry out an action when it is their 

responsibility to fly the airplane to the 

best of their abilities. 

The scope of applicability of this 

material is limited to errors for which 

there is a contribution from or 

relationship to design. Even so, we 

expect § 25.1302(d) to result in design 

changes that will protect against other 

types of errors as well. One example 

might be the use of an ‘‘undo’’ function 

that allows the flightcrew to back out of 

a function once selected in certain 

designs. 

Availability of Draft Advisory Circular 

Because existing guidance does not 

specifically address the requirements of 

this proposal, a draft advisory circular 

accompanies this proposed rule and is 

posted on the FAA’s draft document 

Web site, on the Internet, at http:// 

www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impact of the proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

The FAA has made a determination for 

this proposed rule. 

The reasoning for this determination 

follows. The proposed rule, § 25.1302, 

addresses human factors as they apply 

to installed equipment on the flight 

deck because crew limitations and 

design-related errors are not currently 

covered by the regulations in so specific 

a manner. The proposed rule would 

harmonize with EASA’s CS 25.1302, 

which is already in effect. 

Manufacturers and modifiers of 

transport category aircraft would be 

affected by this proposed rule. But a 

review of current manufacturers has 

revealed they already meet or intend to 

meet the EASA standard as it exists in 

CS 25.1302. Since the requirements in 

the proposed rule are in CS 25.1302, the 

manufacturers would incur no 

additional costs. This is, therefore, a 

clarification of the intent for CS 25.1302 

by EASA and the FAA. 

The compliance of manufacturers 

with the EASA requirements would 

increase safety by (1) reducing the 

likelihood of flight crew errors and 

(2) enabling detection and recovery from 

errors that do occur, or mitigating their 

effects. Since the manufacturers intend 

to comply with the EASA requirements, 

however, there would be no additional 

safety benefits. The proposed rule 

would provide economic benefits from 

reduced joint certification costs brought 

about by a reduction in data collection 

and analysis and by a reduction in the 

paperwork and time required in the 

certification process. The FAA therefore 

has determined that this proposed rule 

would have minimal costs with positive 

net benefits and does not warrant a full 

regulatory evaluation. The FAA requests 

comments regarding this determination. 

The FAA has also determined that 

this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

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

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6093 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

As noted above, this proposed rule 

would not entail any additional costs to 

transport category manufacturers as they 

are already in compliance or intend to 

fully comply with the EASA standard. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would promote 

international trade by harmonizing with 

corresponding European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) regulations, thus 

reducing the cost of joint certification. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there are no 

new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for 

the categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 4(j), FAA Order 1050.1D, 

appendix 4, and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure that the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider all comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal because of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file proprietary or confidential 

business information in the docket. 

Such information must be sent or 

delivered directly to the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document, and marked as proprietary or 

confidential. If submitting information 

on a disk or CD–ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM, and identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the 

FAA is aware of proprietary information 

filed with a comment, the agency does 

not place it in the docket. It is held in 

a separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
6094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http:// 

www.regulations.gov); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Human 

factors, Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

1. The authority citation for Part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702 and 44704. 

2. Add § 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 

function. Such installed equipment and 

systems must meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Flight deck controls must be 

installed to allow accomplishment of all 

the tasks required to safely perform the 

equipment’s intended function 

including providing information to the 

flightcrew that is necessary to 

accomplish the defined tasks. 

(b) Flight deck controls and 

information intended for the 

flightcrew’s use must: 

(1) Be provided in a clear and 

unambiguous manner at a resolution 

and precision appropriate to the task. 

(2) Be accessible and usable by the 

flightcrew in a manner consistent with 

the urgency, frequency, and duration of 

their tasks, and 

(3) Enable flightcrew awareness, if 

awareness is required for safe operation, 

of the effects on the airplane or systems 

resulting from flightcrew actions. 

(c) Operationally-relevant behavior of 

the installed equipment must be: 

(1) Predictable and unambiguous, and 

(2) Designed to enable the flightcrew 

to intervene in a manner appropriate to 

the task. 

(d) To the extent practicable, installed 

equipment must incorporate means to 

enable the flightcrew to manage errors 

resulting from the kinds of flightcrew 

interactions with the equipment that 

can be reasonably expected in service. 

This paragraph does not apply to any of 

the following: 

(1) Skill-related errors associated with 

manual control of the airplane; 

(2) Errors that result from decisions, 

actions, or omissions committed with 

malicious intent; 

(3) Errors arising from a 

crewmember’s reckless decisions, 

actions, or omissions reflecting a 

substantial disregard for safety; and 

(4) Errors resulting from acts or 

threats of violence, including actions 

taken under duress. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 26, 

2011. 

Dorenda D. Baker, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2358 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 

FAA Public Forum To Conduct 

Regulatory Review 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The FAA announces an 

informal meeting to discuss the FAA 

rotorcraft rules, 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, 

and to gather any relevant information 

that will help with drafting any future 

rule changes. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

on March 8, 2011, from 1 to 5 p.m. (ET). 

ADDRESSES: The meeting is in 

conjunction with the Helicopter 

Association International (HAI) HeliExpo at the Orange County Convention 

Center, Room S.310, South Concourse, 

9899 International Drive, Orlando, 

Florida. Attendees are not required to 

register for the Heli-Expo conference to 

participate in this public forum. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Stellar, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 

ASW–110, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, 

Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 

222–5179; or by e-mail at 

fred.stellar@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is announced pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 40113 and 49 U.S.C. 44701 to 

take actions the FAA considers 

necessary in order to enhance safety in 

air commerce and the DOT policies and 

procedures to seek public participation 

in that process. 

Purpose of the Public Meeting 

The purpose of this informal meeting 

is to gather information that may drive 

regulatory changes. The FAA will 

review and consider all material 

presented by participants at the public 

meeting. FAA will use the information 

to analyze the need and scope for 

potential rule changes to enhance 

rotorcraft safety. The goal is to reduce 

the accident/incident rate for rotorcraft 

through promulgation of minimum 

safety standards in line with today’s 

technology and helicopter operations. 

The FAA will have management and 

technical specialists available from the 

Aircraft Certification Service to 

entertain questions and discuss issues 

presented by the audience. Attendance 

is open to all interested persons, but 

will be limited to the space available. 

Public Meeting Procedures 

At this meeting, we will outline our 

approach to conduct a comprehensive 

review of 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 rules 

for rotorcraft airworthiness. We will 

give a brief presentation discussing the 

primary safety concerns driving 

potential revision of rotorcraft rules. 

Following the brief presentation, the 

audience will be encouraged to 

comment or make suggestions regarding 

potential changes to the regulations 

governing rotorcraft airworthiness. An 

FAA representative will facilitate the 

meeting per the following procedures: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1