This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

32810 

Vol. 74, No. 130 

Thursday, July 9, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA 2008–1292; Notice No. 09– 

05] 

RIN 2120–AJ35 

Flightcrew Alerting 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

the airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes concerning 

flightcrew alerting. The proposed 

standards address regulations regarding 

definitions, prioritization, color 

requirements, and performance for 

flightcrew alerting. This proposal would 

update the current regulations regarding 

the latest technology and functionality 

for flightcrew alerting. This proposal is 

necessary to add additional alerting 

functions, and consolidate and 

standardize definitions and regulations 

for flightcrew warning, caution, and 

advisory alerting systems. Adopting this 

proposal would harmonize standards 

between the U.S. and European 

Aviation Safety Agency for flightcrew 

warning, caution, and advisory alerting 

systems. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before September 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA 

2008–1292 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 the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 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 the Docket 

Management Facility 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, go to Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

of the West Building Ground Floor at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Loran Haworth, 

FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface 

Branch (ANM–111), Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1133; facsimile 

425–227–1232; e-mail 

Loran.Haworth@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this 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 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards required in the 

interest of safety for the design and 

performance of aircraft. This change 

more accurately reflects language in 

Section 44701(a)(1). This proposed rule 

is within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

Background 

Flightcrew Alerting Philosophy 

The purpose of alerting functions on 

airplanes is to get the attention of the 

flightcrew, to inform them of specific 

airplane system conditions and certain 

operational events that require their 

awareness, and, in modern alerting 

systems, to make them aware of actions 

(for example, actions listed in an 

electronic checklist that accompanies an 

alert) to address the condition. To fulfill 

this purpose, designers of alerts must 

consider three elements. First, designers 

must determine what airplane system 

conditions (the sensed condition) 

should cause an alert (for example, 

engine overheating). Second, they must 

further consider what alert information 

should be communicated to the pilot 

within the specific flight deck and 

operational context (for example, the 

alert message, urgency, prioritization 

among other possible alerts, and if it 

should be suppressed). Finally, they 

must determine how the alert is 

presented to the flightcrew (for example, 

location of the alert on the flightdeck, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32811 

1Published in the Federal Register (41 FR 44567) 

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

2The FAA reviewed recommendations from the 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team and the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Information 

regarding these groups and their recommendations 

appears later in this NPRM and in the public 

docket. 

alert combinations [aural, visual, 

tactile], and color standardization). The 

condition sensing, information 

processing, and alert presentation 

features should all be designed to 

support the purpose of the alerting 

function. Conditions and events that do 

not require flightcrew awareness should 

not trigger an alert. The presentation of 

all alerting information should be 

accomplished using a consistent alerting 

philosophy. 

Statement of the Problem 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) § 25.1322 became effective 

February 1, 1977,1 and has never been 

amended. Since it was issued, there 

have been many advances in the design 

and technology of flight deck alerting 

devices. The new technologies 

associated with integrated visual, aural, 

and tactile flightcrew alerts and alert 

messaging are more effective in alerting 

the flightcrew and aiding them in 

decision making than the discrete 

colored lights for warning, caution, and 

advisory alerts prescribed in § 25.1322. 

The word ‘‘alert’’ in the above context 

is a generic term used to describe a 

flight deck indication meant to attract 

the attention of the flightcrew and 

identify a non-normal operational or 

airplane system condition. Warnings, 

cautions, and advisories are considered 

alerts. 

Because § 25.1322 is outdated and 

lacks content commensurate with state 

of the art flight deck display technology, 

applicants have to perform additional 

work when showing compliance to that 

regulation. This also results in 

additional work for the FAA because we 

must generate issue papers and special 

conditions when applicants want to 

install advanced flightdeck designs and 

current display technologies that are not 

addressed in § 25.1322. 

Currently § 25.1322 has the following 

deficiencies: 

• It prescribes only a color standard 

for alerting lights and lags behind 

current alerting technology 

advancements. For example, discrete 

lights have been predominantly 

replaced with electronic displays that 

incorporate integrated warning, caution, 

and advisory text messages. 

• It does not provide a definition for 

‘‘advisory,’’ although the term is 

included in the title. 

• It does not clearly define a 

prioritization scheme. The prioritization 

hierarchy requirement for alerts 

increases flight safety by informing the 

flightcrew of the urgency of the alerting 

condition, so the flightcrew can take 

appropriate and timely action. 

• It prescribes only a visual 

requirement for timely attention-getting 

alert cues. Adding timely, attentiongetting alert cues that include aural and 

tactile alerting in addition to visual cues 

increases flight safety by ensuring that 

the pilot is satisfactorily alerted and has 

adequate time to make any necessary 

correction. 

• It does not prescribe a requirement 

for providing alerting information 

needed to enable the flightcrew to 

identify the alert and determine a 

corrective action, if any. Appropriate 

alerting information (for example, a 

message) increases flight safety by 

facilitating the flightcrew’s ability to 

precisely identify the alert, which 

further assists the flightcrew in taking 

the appropriate corrective action. 

• It does not address requirements for 

minimizing nuisance alerts. Minimizing 

nuisance alerts increases flight safety by 

reducing the impact of frequent false or 

nuisance alerts. False alerts and 

nuisance alerts increase the flightcrew’s 

workload, reduce the flightcrew’s 

confidence in the alerting system, 

negatively affect their reaction to a real 

alert, and may even lead the flightcrew 

to take an inappropriate action. 

• It prescribes only the color ‘‘amber’’ 

for caution lights and not the color 

‘‘yellow.’’ Yellow, which appears 

visually similar to amber, has also been 

accepted as an aviation industry 

standard for caution alerts. 

• It does not clearly outline a 

consistent flight deck alerting 

philosophy that prescribes the 

objectives, the prioritization hierarchy, 

and the need to minimize nuisance 

alerts. A consistent flight deck alerting 

philosophy increases flight safety 

because it solidifies flightcrew 

expectations (for example, how an alert 

will be presented, how and when an 

alert should be suppressed, and the 

priority of the response) and reduces 

flightcrew interpretation time and 

errors. 

• It uses ‘‘warning’’ in a generic sense 

without a specific, standardized 

definition. Standardizing terminology 

for flightcrew alerting supports 

consistent applications of and 

compliance with the standard. 

• It does not address using integrated 

visual and aural alerts or prioritizing 

multiple alerts that occur concurrently. 

• It does not address visual alerts for 

monochromatic displays. 

History 

Currently, § 25.1322 only considers 

discrete colored lights for warning, 

caution, and advisory alerts and does 

not consider new technologies that may 

be more effective in aiding the 

flightcrew in decision making. 

Transport category airplanes were 

designed with discrete red and amber 

lights for the flightcrew warning and 

caution alerting functions in the flight 

deck. A red light indicated a hazard to 

the flightcrew (for example, engine fire), 

which may require immediate corrective 

action. An amber light indicated the 

possible need for future corrective 

action. A green light indicated safe 

operation. For the flightcrew advisory 

alerting function, any light that was not 

red, amber, or green, including white, 

was used to indicate, for example, a 

system or operational status change. 

Each light normally indicated the alert 

status of a single system parameter, such 

as high engine oil temperature. 

Development of the Proposal 

Both the FAA and the aviation 

industry agree that the current rule is no 

longer appropriate for flight deck 

designs and needs to be updated. Based 

on information from aviation industry 

groups,2 the FAA determined that 

discrete lights could be replaced with 

more effective logic-based integrated 

alerting systems that take advantage of 

the capabilities of newer display 

hardware and software. This was 

accomplished by implementing 

increasingly capable ‘‘smart’’ alerting 

logic for flightcrew alerting systems that 

are comprised of integrated and 

prioritized visual alerts, aural alerts 

(such as voice messages or tone 

generation systems), and tactile alerts 

(such as stick shakers). Smart alerting 

systems are highly integrated systems 

that monitor the status of an airplane 

and its operational environment and, 

when necessary, provide effective and 

timely flightcrew alerts in the flight 

deck with appropriate information. 

Compared to discrete lights, these 

‘‘smart’’ integrated alerting systems 

more effectively alert and inform the 

flightcrew because they: 

• Provide timely attention-getting 

cues through at least two different 

senses to sufficiently attract the 

flightcrew’s attention for alerts requiring 

immediate flightcrew awareness (for 

example, in addition to a visual alert, 

providing an aural alert or a tactile 

alert). 

• Provide more information with 

discrete lighted text messages (for 

example, ‘‘CONFIG DOORS’’) for correct 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3 ‘‘Joint Safety Implementation Team, Results and 

Analysis—Approach & Landing Report,’’ dated May 

17, 2001, is available in the public docket. 

4Published in the Federal Register (56 FR 2190) 

on January 22, 1991. 

5Published in the Federal Register (67 FR 19796) 

on April 23, 2002. 

identification of the alert condition and 

flightcrew actions (for example, actions 

shown in an electronic checklist that 

accompanies an alert). 

• Prioritize the presentation of 

multiple alerts so that pilots know 

which alert to respond to first. For 

example, in a list of multiple visual 

alerts, warning alerts are presented 

above caution alerts. For aural alerts, 

warning alerts sound before caution 

alerts. 

• Reduce the number of nuisance 

alerts so pilots are not distracted by 

inappropriate alerts. 

FAA Safer Skies Initiative and 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

(CAST) 

In 1997, the FAA initiated the ‘‘Safer 

Skies’’ program in an effort to reduce 

the number of fatal aviation accidents. 

That same year the U.S. aviation 

industry developed a safety plan that 

addressed many of the same issues. The 

‘‘Safer Skies’’ and aviation industry 

initiatives were combined into the 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

(CAST). Working groups were 

established to perform in-depth analyses 

of the top accident categories in 

commercial aviation. The groups used a 

data-driven approach to: 

• Analyze past accidents and 

incidents. 

• Identify accident precursors. 

• Develop specific safety 

enhancements (SE) to address 

precursors and contributing factors. 

In May of 2001, the CAST provided 

safety enhancement recommendations 

to the FAA for airplane flightcrew alerts. 

Those recommendations appear below. 

The CAST working groups 

recommended a number of SEs in the 

‘‘Joint Safety Implementation Team, 

Results and Analysis—Approach & 

Landing Report,’’ dated May 17, 2001.3

The CAST SE Number 21 addresses 

flightcrew alerting and states: 

Implement interactive electronic 

checklist and smart alerting systems that 

address issues such as: 

• Reduced nuisance alerts, 

• Reduced redundant alerts, 

• Flight-phase sensitive alerts (for 

example, some alerts attenuated on 

takeoff roll, others on short final 

approach), and 

• Built-in logic prompting the 

flightcrew to take appropriate actions. 

That SE also states that § 25.1322 

should be revised to include 

requirements for smart alerting systems. 

The proposed § 25.1322 addresses the 

alerting system improvements noted in 

SE Number 21. 

Aviation Authorities 

The proposed § 25.1322 results from a 

joint effort to harmonize the U.S. and 

EASA airworthiness standards for 

flightcrew, warning, caution, and 

advisory alerting systems. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Title 14 CFR part 25 contains the U.S. 

airworthiness standards for type 

certification of transport category 

airplanes. Part 25 standards apply to 

airplanes manufactured within the U.S. 

and to airplanes manufactured in other 

countries and imported into the U.S. 

under a bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 

Joint Airworthiness Requirement 

(JAR)–25 contains the European 

airworthiness standards for type 

certification of transport category 

airplanes. Thirty-seven European 

countries accept airplanes type 

certificated to JAR–25 standards, 

including airplanes manufactured in the 

U.S. that are type certificated to JAR–25 

standards for export to Europe. 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) 

A new aviation regulatory body, 

EASA, was established by the European 

Community to develop standards to 

ensure the highest level of safety and 

environmental protection, oversee their 

uniform application across Europe, and 

promote them internationally. EASA 

formally became responsible for 

certification of aircraft, engines, parts, 

and appliances on September 28, 2003. 

EASA will eventually absorb all 

functions and activities of the JAA, 

including its efforts to harmonize 

European airworthiness certification 

regulations with those of the U.S. 

JAR–25 standards have been 

incorporated into EASA’s ‘‘Certification 

Specifications for Large Aeroplanes, 

(CS)–25,’’ in similar if not identical 

language. EASA’s CS–25 became 

effective on October 17, 2003. 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) 

The FAA, in cooperation with the 

JAA and representatives of American 

and European aerospace industries, 

recognized that a common set of 

standards would not only economically 

benefit the aviation industry, but also 

maintain a high level of safety. In 1988, 

the FAA and the JAA began a process 

to harmonize their respective 

airworthiness standards. In 1991, the 

FAA established the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to obtain industry’s input on a 

wide range of regulatory issues, 

including the FAA/JAA harmonization 

efforts.4

In April, 2002, the FAA tasked ARAC 

to review and make recommendations 

for revising § 25.1322.5 ARAC accepted 

the task and assigned the Avionics 

Systems Harmonization Working Group 

(ASHWG) to develop recommendations 

that would: 

• Bring the safety standards up-todate. 

• Make the standards more 

appropriate for addressing flight deck 

design and technologies associated with 

visual, aural, and tactile annunciation. 

• Address prioritization of multiple 

alerts that may occur at the same time. 

At a minimum, the recommendations 

were to consider airworthiness, safety, 

cost, recent certifications and fleet 

experience, and harmonization of JAR 

25.1322. 

The ASHWG reviewed and 

recommended revisions to § 25.1322 

that would make the standards more 

appropriate for addressing current and 

future flight deck design and 

technologies associated with visual, 

tactile, and aural annunciation and 

smart alerting systems. With the 

guidance of ARAC’s Human Factors 

Harmonization Working Group 

(HFHWG) and CAST SE 21, the ASHWG 

identified potential human-error issues 

with flight deck alerting. The ASHWG 

also coordinated with RTCA, Inc. 

(formerly the Radio Technical 

Commission for Aeronautics) Special 

Committee 195, Flight Information 

Services Communications, in a review 

of the latest draft of RTCA DO–267, 

‘‘Minimum Aviation System 

Performance Standards for Flight 

Information Services-Broadcast (FIS–B) 

Data Link.’’ 

Special Committee 195 identified 

potential conflicts between this 

proposed rule and RTCA DO–267, 

which allows flight deck weather 

displays to use the color ‘‘red’’ to depict 

warm fronts or low-pressure centers in 

a way that may appear inconsistent with 

the proposed § 25.1322. While the 

proposed § 25.1322 associates the use of 

the color ‘‘red’’ with conditions that 

require immediate pilot recognition and 

response, or represent a serious safety 

threat, it does allow limited use of red 

for functions other than flightcrew 

alerting (for example, the use of red and 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32813 

amber or yellow on weather radar 

displays). Red areas on a weather radar 

display represent more severe (higher) 

precipitation rates than the amber or 

yellow areas, and may suggest a higher 

probability of convective turbulence 

that may be hazardous. Such displays 

help the pilot determine areas to avoid, 

if possible. Such use of colors is not 

considered alerting, and does not 

typically degrade the effectiveness of 

flightdeck alerts. Additionally, what 

constitutes a severe weather condition 

for a given flight is a function of many 

factors, and whether to use red or amber 

or yellow to indicate reduced visibility 

or other weather conditions such as 

icing can be dependent on the general 

capabilities of the aircraft, for example 

whether it is approved for operation in 

icing or low visibility conditions. 

This proposed rule would limit the 

use of red, amber, and yellow in the 

flight deck. This limitation would 

reduce potential human errors caused 

by red, amber, and yellow alert colors 

being used in non-alerting ways. The 

FAA’s primary concern is that the 

flightcrew might become desensitized to 

the meaning and importance of color 

coding for alerts if the use of the colors 

red, amber, and yellow were not limited 

for non-alerting uses. In addition to 

weather radar displays, Terrain 

Awareness and Warning System 

(TAWS) displays (excluding the alerting 

functions) currently use red, amber, and 

yellow. TAWS displays indicate if 

terrain is above, at, or below the 

airplane’s current altitude. Weather 

radar and TAWS displays are two 

examples of acceptable uses of red, 

amber, and yellow for non-alerting 

situations that have not interfered with 

flightcrew alerting. Both of these 

examples provide a progression from 

green to amber to red representing 

increasing degrees of threat, potential 

hazard, safety criticality, or need for 

flight crew awareness or possible 

response. The proposed rule includes 

provisions to allow limited use of red, 

amber, and yellow for non-alerting 

functions if it does not adversely affect 

flightcrew alerting. This means, for 

example, we may allow use of the color 

‘‘red’’ in certain types of flight deck 

weather displays, but we would need to 

evaluate the effect on flightcrew 

alerting. 

This proposed rule is based on the 

ASHWG’s report. The Transport 

Airplane and Engine Issues Group 

approved the report and forwarded it to 

ARAC, which forwarded it to the FAA. 

EASA is also initiating rulemaking 

based on this report, and we are 

working with EASA to ensure 

harmonized standards. 

Advisory Material 

In addition to being tasked to 

recommend revisions to § 25.1322, the 

ASHWG was tasked to recommend a 

new advisory circular (AC) with 

guidance material identifying acceptable 

ways to comply with the recommended 

new and revised requirements. The JAA 

already provides guidance in Advisory 

Material Joint (AMJ) 25.1322. The 

ASHWG developed proposed language 

and submitted it to the FAA. Once the 

FAA has drafted a proposed AC it will 

be made available for public comment. 

Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory 

Requirements 

Expansion of Scope and Title Change 

The proposed § 25.1322 would 

expand and update the current 

§ 25.1322 from only addressing visual 

alerting lights to including all flightcrew 

alerting functions. These proposed 

flightcrew alerting functions include not 

only visual alerting lights but also aural, 

tactile, other visual display alerting 

methods, and integrated smart 

flightcrew alerting systems. We 

therefore propose to change the title of 

§ 25.1322 from ‘‘Warning, caution, and 

advisory lights’’ to ‘‘Flightcrew 

alerting.’’ The new title would 

encompass all of the changes included 

in the proposed rule. 

Administrator Approval for Deviation 

From Colored Light Standards 

We also propose to remove the 

general text in the first sentence of the 

current § 25.1322 that allows a deviation 

from the standardization of the color of 

the lights for flightcrew alerting, if 

approved by the Administrator. We 

propose to limit the use of the colors 

red, amber, and yellow so flightcrews 

can unmistakably associate the use of 

red, amber, or yellow with flightcrew 

alerts, except as allowed in proposed 

§ 25.1322(f). Proposed § 25.1322(f) 

would allow the use of red, amber, and 

yellow for non-alerting functions only if 

the applicant shows that the use is 

limited and would not adversely affect 

flightcrew alerting. 

General Performance Standards for 

Flightcrew Alerts 

We propose to add performance based 

requirements for all flightcrew alerting 

methods. These performance 

requirements would increase flight 

safety by setting standards for alerting 

elements in future alerting systems, 

including cueing by more than one 

sense, information content, ease and 

immediacy of detection, and alert 

intelligibility. Proposed § 25.1322(a) 

would require that: 

1. Flightcrew Warning and Caution 

alerts provide timely attention-getting 

cues through at least two different 

senses by a combination of aural, visual, 

or tactile indications. 

2. Flightcrew alerts provide the 

information needed to identify the alert 

and determine correct action, if any. 

3. Flightcrew alerts be readily and 

easily detectable and intelligible by the 

flightcrew in all foreseeable operating 

conditions, including where multiple 

alerts are provided. 

Hierarchy of Alerts 

Some conditions that generate alerts 

are more urgent and safety critical than 

others and should take priority. The 

prioritization hierarchy requirements for 

alerts increase flight safety by informing 

the flightcrew of the urgency of the 

flight condition for each type of alert so 

the flightcrew can take appropriate 

action, normally by dealing with the 

most important conditions first. For 

clarifying the alerting categories 

currently embodied in § 25.1322, and 

prioritizing the hierarchy for alerts 

based on the urgency of flightcrew 

awareness and response, we propose to 

set the following definitions and 

conditions: 

• Warning alerts would require 

immediate flightcrew awareness and an 

immediate flightcrew response (for 

example, ‘‘CONFIG RUDDER’’ 

indicating that rudder trim is not 

centered when engine thrust is at 

takeoff). 

• A caution alert would require 

immediate flightcrew awareness and a 

less urgent flightcrew response (for 

example, an autothrottle disconnect 

alert). 

• Advisory alerts would be required 

for conditions that require flightcrew 

awareness but may require subsequent 

flightcrew response (for example, the 

failure of a single fuel pump in a tank 

with redundant fuel pumps). Unlike 

warning and caution alerts, advisory 

alerts do not require immediate 

awareness and do not always require a 

subsequent flightcrew response. 

Nuisance Alerts 

Proposed § 25.1322(c) would include 

new airworthiness standards to 

minimize nuisance alerts for flightcrew 

alerting. A nuisance alert is an alert 

generated by a system that is 

functioning as designed, but is 

inappropriate or unnecessary for the 

particular condition. For example, the 

landing gear configuration warning may 

be automatically inhibited in those 

flight phases where that warning is 

clearly unnecessary and would distract 

the flightcrew. Nuisance alerts must be 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

minimized because the flightcrew’s 

assessment of a nuisance alert increases 

their workload, reduces their confidence 

in the alerting system, and affects their 

reaction in case of a legitimate alert. 

Proposed § 25.1322(c) would require 

that the flightcrew alert presentation be 

designed to minimize nuisance alerts 

and their subsequent effects. The 

proposed rule would minimize the 

effect of nuisance alerts by: 

• Permitting acknowledgement and 

suppression of visual and aural 

attention-getting cues to eliminate 

display clutter and reduce distractions. 

• Preventing the presentation of 

inappropriate or unnecessary alerts that 

could cause a hazard if the flightcrew 

was distracted by or responded to the 

alert. 

• Removing the presentation of a 

flightcrew alert when the alert condition 

no longer exists to reduce unnecessary 

flightcrew distractions, workload, and 

display clutter. 

In addition, proposed § 25.1322(c) 

would require a means for suppressing 

an attention getting component of an 

alert caused by a failure of the alerting 

system that interferes with the 

flightcrew’s ability to safely operate the 

airplane along with a clear and 

unmistakable indication that the alert 

has been suppressed. The means of 

suppressing the attention getting 

component of an alert resulting from a 

failure of the alerting system must not 

be readily available to the flightcrew 

such that it could be operated 

inadvertently or by habitual reflexive 

action. For example, the action of 

suppressing an aural alert or 

extinguishing a flashing master warning 

or caution light by reaching forward and 

pressing the alerting light (switch light) 

is a common acceptable means of 

suppressing the attention getting 

component(s) of the alerts, but would 

not be acceptable for suppressing alerts 

caused by failure of the alerting system. 

Monochromatic Display Alerts 

We propose to revise § 25.1322 to 

establish requirements for presenting 

visual alerts on monochromatic 

displays, as prescribed in proposed 

§ 25.1322(e). Certain displays, such as 

head-up displays (HUD) located in the 

pilot’s primary field of view, are 

monochromatic and are not capable of 

displaying alerting colors. Since there is 

an overall safety benefit in displaying 

alerts on the HUD, visual display coding 

techniques other than color need to be 

used for alerts appearing in the HUD so 

flightcrews can easily and clearly 

distinguish between warning, caution, 

and advisory alert categories. Proposed 

§ 25.1322(e) would require that visual 

alert indications shown on 

monochromatic displays use display 

features such that the flightcrew can 

clearly distinguish between warning, 

caution, and advisory alert categories. 

For example, consistent display coding 

techniques such as location, shape, font 

style, size, boxing, texture, and other 

coding methods may be used to 

distinguish between each alert category. 

Color Standardization 

We propose to revise § 25.1322 to 

establish color standardization for 

warning, caution, and advisory alert 

indications on multicolor displays, as 

prescribed in proposed § 25.1322(d). 

The proposed color standardization in 

§ 25.1322(d) is similar to the color 

standardization for indicator lights in 

the current § 25.1322(a) and (b), with 

the following changes: 

• Current § 25.1322 prescribes only 

the color for warning, caution, and 

advisory lights. Proposed § 25.1322 

would include color standardization for 

visual alerts beyond just discrete lights 

to include all visual alerts. 

• Current § 25.1322(b) prescribes only 

the color ‘‘amber’’ for caution lights. 

The color ‘‘yellow’’ was added to 

proposed § 25.1322(d)(2) so that either 

amber or yellow light can be used for 

caution alert indications. Yellow was 

added because it is commonly used in 

flight deck displays and is visually 

similar to amber. 

• Proposed § 25.1322(b)(3) defines 

what an ‘‘advisory’’ alert is. It also 

prohibits the use of amber or yellow for 

advisory alerts since the colors amber 

and yellow are already reserved for 

caution alerts (proposed § 25.1322(d)(2)) 

and color coding is used as the primary 

means for distinguishing between alert 

categories. Under the current rule, 

amber or yellow can be used for both 

caution and advisory alerts on the same 

display. This makes it more difficult for 

the flightcrew to rapidly distinguish 

between alerting categories when two 

alert categories (caution and advisory) 

are the same color. Using different 

colors to distinguish between the 

caution and advisory alerts will help 

satisfy other proposed rule changes that 

require alerts to ‘‘be readily and easily 

detectable and intelligible by the 

flightcrew under all foreseeable 

operating conditions including those 

where multiple alerts are provided’’ 

(proposed § 25.1322(a)(3)) and allow the 

flightcrew to correctly recognize the 

‘‘urgency of flightcrew response’’ 

(§ 25.1322(b)). 

• Proposed § 25.1322(d)(3) prescribes 

the colors for advisory alerts. 

• Since proposed § 25.1322 is 

intended to address only alerting 

functions, the text from current 

§ 25.1322(c) regarding use of the color 

‘‘green’’ was not retained because green 

is used to indicate safe operation, not an 

alert. An alert indicates a non-normal 

operational or airplane system 

condition. Green is mentioned in 

proposed § 25.1322(d)(3) to specify that 

it cannot be used for an advisory alert. 

Limitations on Using Red, Amber, and 

Yellow 

We propose to include a new 

paragraph (f) in § 25.1322 to limit the 

use of red, amber, and yellow within the 

flight deck for functions other than 

flightcrew alerting, so that these colors 

can effectively indicate the immediacy 

of response commensurate with the 

associated hazard. The restrictions are 

necessary so that non-alerting uses of 

these same colors do not adversely 

affect the flightcrew’s interpretation of 

how quickly they need to respond to an 

alert. By standardizing the colors used 

for alerts and by limiting the use of the 

above colors for other functions on the 

flight deck, the flightcrew will be more 

likely to both rapidly detect an alert and 

understand the urgency of the alert. An 

adverse effect would be slowed 

recognition of an alert and the urgency 

of the alert. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

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 determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Analysis 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32815 

6OMB Circular A–4, September 2003. 

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 impacts of this proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; however, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this NPRM is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it harmonizes U.S. aviation standards 

with those of other civil aviation 

authorities, (3) is ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures; (4) would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; (5) 

would not create unnecessary obstacles 

to the foreign commerce of the United 

States; and (6) would not impose an 

unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

These proposed requirements need 

only prevent 10 serious injuries over the 

period of analysis, with estimated 

benefits of $8.3 million ($4.4 million 

present value). Based on a threshold 

analysis, this is extremely likely, given 

the history of flightcrew confusion of 

alerts contributing to accidents. The 

total estimated costs are $7.7 million 

($4.1 million present value). 

Accordingly, estimated benefits of the 

proposal justify the costs. 

Persons Potentially Affected by This 

Rule 

Manufacturers of part 25 airplanes 

Assumptions 

Discount rate—7% 

Period of analysis—Twenty Years 

(2009 through 2028). 

Benefits of This Proposed Rule 

By examining the historical data, we 

have shown that over the past twenty 

years, there were both non-fatal events 

and fatal events, which might have been 

prevented with the requirements 

contained in this NPRM. The potential 

severity of an event is demonstrated in 

the DC 9–82 accident on August 16, 

1987, that occurred shortly after takeoff 

from Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 

which resulted in 154 deaths. The 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) determined that one 

contributing factor was the airplane 

takeoff warning system, which failed to 

warn the flightcrew that the airplane 

was improperly configured for takeoff. 

This finding led to the current proposed 

rulemaking. 

To quantify the benefits of this 

proposal, we have performed a 

‘‘threshold’’ analysis. Threshold or 

‘‘break-even’’ analysis answers the 

question, ‘‘How small could the value of 

the benefits be before the rule would 

yield zero net benefits?’’ 6

Our threshold analysis demonstrates 

that if these proposed requirements 

prevent at least ten serious injuries 

($830,000 per injury) over the period of 

analysis, the total estimated benefits 

would be $8.3 million ($4.4 million 

present value). 

Costs of This Rule 

We obtained compliance cost 

estimates from three part 25 airplane 

manufacturers and two designers of 

alerting systems. The two alerting 

system designers stated that there would 

be no additional cost. Although the 

manufacturers stated there were no 

additional manufacturing or operating 

costs that would occur as a result of this 

proposal, they indicated there would be 

additional design and certification cost. 

We averaged the three estimates from 

the part 25 manufacturers and arrived at 

an average cost estimate of $0.7 million 

per new aircraft design. When the 

average cost per new aircraft 

certification ($0.7 million) is multiplied 

by estimated annual number of new 

certifications (0.55), we arrive at annual 

costs of $385,000. When summed over 

the period of analysis the total estimated 

costs are $7.7 million ($4.1 million 

present value). 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The current United States part 25 

airplane manufacturers include: Boeing, 

Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 

Learjet (owned by Bombardier), 

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Aircraft, 

and Sabreliner Corporation. All United 

States transport category aircraft 

manufacturers exceed the Small 

Business Administration small-entity 

criteria of 1,500 employees. 

Given that there are no small entity 

manufacturers of part 25 aircraft, 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 Analysis 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and do 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 notes the purpose is to ensure the 

safety of the American public, and has 

assessed the effects of this proposed rule 

to ensure it does not exclude imports 

that meet this objective. As a result, this 

proposed rule is not considered as 

creating an unnecessary obstacle to 

foreign commerce and has been 

determined that it would impose the 

same costs on domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

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 (in 

1995 dollars) 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 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, 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. We 

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, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in Title 14 of the 

CFR 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. Because this 

proposed rule would apply to the 

certification of future designs of 

transport category airplanes and their 

subsequent operation, it could, if 

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically 

requests comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently in intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in FAA 

Order 1050.1E, paragraph 312(f), and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the executive order because while it is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, and 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures, it is not 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. We also invite 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 the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32817 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I 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. Revise § 25.1322 to read as follows: 

§ 25.1322 Flightcrew alerting. 

(a) Flightcrew alerts must: 

(1) For warning and caution alerts, 

provide timely attention-getting cues 

through at least two different senses by 

a combination of aural, visual, or tactile 

indications. 

(2) Provide the flightcrew with the 

information needed to identify the alert 

and determine the correct action, if any. 

(3) Be readily and easily detectable 

and intelligible by the flightcrew under 

all foreseeable operating conditions, 

including conditions where multiple 

alerts are provided. 

(b) Alerts must conform to the 

following prioritization hierarchy based 

upon urgency of flightcrew awareness 

and urgency of flightcrew response. 

(1) Warning: For conditions that 

require immediate flightcrew awareness 

and immediate flightcrew response. 

(2) Caution: For conditions that 

require immediate flightcrew awareness 

and less urgent flightcrew response. 

(3) Advisory: For conditions that 

require flightcrew awareness and may 

require subsequent flightcrew response. 

(c) Alert presentation means must be 

designed to minimize nuisance effects. 

In particular a flightcrew alerting system 

must: 

(1) Permit each occurrence of 

attention getting cues to be 

acknowledged and suppressed unless 

they are otherwise required to be 

continuous. 

(2) Prevent the presentation of an alert 

that is inappropriate or unnecessary. 

(3) Remove the presentation of the 

alert when the condition no longer 

exists. 

(4) Provide a means to suppress an 

attention getting component of an alert 

caused by a failure of the alerting 

system that interferes with the 

flightcrew’s ability to safely operate the 

airplane. This means must not be 

readily available to the flight crew such 

that it could be operated inadvertently, 

or by habitual reflexive action. In this 

case, there must be a clear and 

unmistakable annunciation to the flight 

crew that the alert has been suppressed. 

(d) Visual alert indications that are 

shown on multicolor displays must 

conform to the following color 

convention: 

(1) Red for warning alert indications. 

(2) Amber or yellow for caution alert 

indications. 

(3) Any color except red, amber, 

yellow, or green for advisory alert 

indications. 

(e) Visual alert indications shown on 

monochromatic displays must use 

display coding techniques such that the 

flightcrew can clearly distinguish 

between warning, caution, and advisory 

alert categories. 

(f) The colors red, amber, or yellow 

are normally reserved for alerting 

functions. The use of these colors for 

functions other than flightcrew alerting 

must be limited and must not adversely 

affect flightcrew alerting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2009. 

K.C. Yanamura, 

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–16236 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404, 405, and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2007–0053] 

Compassionate Allowances for EarlyOnset Alzheimer’s Disease and 

Related Dementias; Office of the 

Commissioner, Hearing 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration 

(SSA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: We are considering ways to 

quickly identify diseases and other 

serious medical conditions that 

obviously meet the definition of 

disability under the Social Security Act 

(Act) and can be identified with 

minimal objective medical information. 

We are calling this method 

‘‘Compassionate Allowances.’’ We will 

hold a hearing on July 29, 2009, to 

obtain information about possible 

methods of identifying adults with 

Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease and 

related dementias and the advisability 

of implementing compassionate 

allowances for people with these 

diseases. 

DATES: This hearing will be held on July 

29, 2009, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Central Daylight Time (CDT), in 

Chicago, IL. The hearing will be held at 

the Drake Hotel, 140 East Walton Place, 

Chicago, IL 60611. While the public is 

welcome to attend the hearing, only 

invited witnesses will present 

testimony. 

You may also watch the proceedings 

live via Webcast beginning at 9 a.m. 

CDT. You may access the Webcast line 

for the hearing on the Social Security 

Administration Web site at http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov/ 

compassionate_allowances/ 

hearings0709.htm. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments about the compassionate 

allowances initiative with respect to 

adults with Early-Onset Alzheimer’s 

Disease and Related Dementias, as well 

as topics covered at this hearing by 

(1) e-mail addressed to 

Compassionate.Allowances@ssa.gov; or 

(2) regular mail to Nancy Schoenberg, 

Acting Director, Office of 

Compassionate Allowances and 

Disability Outreach, ODP, ORDP, Social 

Security Administration, 4671 Annex 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401. We 

welcome your comments, but we may 

not respond directly to comments sent 

in response to this notice of the hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Compassionate.Allowances@ssa.gov. 

You may also mail inquiries about this 

meeting to Nancy Schoenberg at the 

above-mentioned address. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit Social Security 

online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under titles II and XVI of the Act, we 

pay benefits to claimants who meet our 

rules for entitlement and have medically 

determinable physical or mental 

impairments that are severe enough to 

meet the definition of disability in the 

Act. The rules for determining disability 

can be very complicated, but some 

claimants have such serious medical 

conditions that their conditions 

obviously meet our disability standards. 

To better address the needs of these 

claimants, we have implemented the 

Compassionate Allowance initiative to 

quickly identify diseases and other 

medical conditions that invariably 

qualify under our Listing of 

Impairments based on minimal 

objective medical information. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS