Document ID: FAA-2008-1292-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Flightcrew Alerting
Posted Date: 2009-07-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 32810-32817]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-10]                         

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================

[[Page 32810]]

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,

[[Page 32811]]

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) Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Published in the Federal Register (41 FR 44567) on December 
20, 1976; Amendment No. 25-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Sec.  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 Sec.  25.1322.
    Currently Sec.  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, attention-getting 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, Sec.  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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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

[[Page 32812]]

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Joint Safety Implementation Team, Results and Analysis--
Approach & Landing Report,'' dated May 17, 2001, is available in the 
public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  25.1322 should be revised to include 
requirements for smart alerting systems. The proposed Sec.  25.1322 
addresses the alerting system improvements noted in SE Number 21.

Aviation Authorities

    The proposed Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Published in the Federal Register (56 FR 2190) on January 
22, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April, 2002, the FAA tasked ARAC to review and make 
recommendations for revising Sec.  25.1322.\5\ ARAC accepted the task 
and assigned the Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group (ASHWG) 
to develop recommendations that would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Published in the Federal Register (67 FR 19796) on April 23, 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Bring the safety standards up-to-date.
     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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
25.1322. While the proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  25.1322 would expand and update the current 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  25.1322(f). Proposed Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 32814]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  25.1322 to establish requirements for 
presenting visual alerts on monochromatic displays, as prescribed in 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  25.1322 to establish color 
standardization for warning, caution, and advisory alert indications on 
multicolor displays, as prescribed in proposed Sec.  25.1322(d). The 
proposed color standardization in Sec.  25.1322(d) is similar to the 
color standardization for indicator lights in the current Sec.  
25.1322(a) and (b), with the following changes:
     Current Sec.  25.1322 prescribes only the color for 
warning, caution, and advisory lights. Proposed Sec.  25.1322 would 
include color standardization for visual alerts beyond just discrete 
lights to include all visual alerts.
     Current Sec.  25.1322(b) prescribes only the color 
``amber'' for caution lights. The color ``yellow'' was added to 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  25.1322(a)(3)) and allow 
the flightcrew to correctly recognize the ``urgency of flightcrew 
response'' (Sec.  25.1322(b)).
     Proposed Sec.  25.1322(d)(3) prescribes the colors for 
advisory alerts.
     Since proposed Sec.  25.1322 is intended to address only 
alerting functions, the text from current Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 32815]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OMB Circular A-4, September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-for-profit 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

[[Page 32816]]

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).

[[Page 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 Sec.  25.1322 to read as follows:

Sec.  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