Installed Systems and Equipment for Use by the Flightcrew, 25840-25846 [2013-10554]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25840-25846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10554]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2010-1175; Amdt. No. 25-138]
RIN 2120-AJ83


Installed Systems and Equipment for Use by the Flightcrew

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule amends design requirements in the airworthiness 
standards for transport category airplanes to minimize the occurrence 
of design-related flightcrew errors. The new design requirements will 
enable a flightcrew member to detect and manage his or her errors when 
the errors occur. Adopting this rule will eliminate regulatory 
differences between the airworthiness standards of the United States 
(U.S.) and those of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) without 
affecting current industry design practices.

DATES: Effective July 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this final rule, contact Loran Haworth, Airplane and Flightcrew 
Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 227-1133; facsimile (425) 227-1320; email 
Loran.Haworth@faa.gov.
    For legal questions about this final rule, contact Doug Anderson, 
Office of the Regional Counsel (ANM-7), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166; facsimile 425-227-
1007; email Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing 
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of 
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It 
prescribes new safety standards for the design, production, and 
operation of transport category airplanes.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AFM Airplane Flight Manual
ALPA Air Line Pilots Association, International
ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
ATC Air Traffic Control
DER Designated Engineering Representative
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EFB Electronic Flight Bag
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FMS Flight Management System
HF Human Factors
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
STC Supplemental Type Certificate
TC Type Certificate
UM Unit Member

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This final rule adds Sec.  25.1302 which addresses--
     Design requirements to minimize errors made by the 
flightcrew and enable them to detect and manage their errors when the 
errors occur;
     Flightcrew limitations and control requirements not 
covered by current regulations;
     Flightcrew interactions with the equipment that can be 
reasonably expected in service;
     Uniform standards that address design for flightcrew error 
in transport category airplanes; and
     Harmonization of the United States (U.S.) and EASA 
airworthiness standards.

II. Background

    Accidents often result from a sequence or combination of flightcrew 
errors and safety related events. Flightcrews contribute positively to 
the safety of the air transportation system by using their ability to 
assess complex situations and make reasoned decisions. However, even 
trained, qualified, checked, alert flightcrew members can make errors.
    Flightcrew errors that could impact safety are often detected and 
mitigated in the normal course of events. However, accident analyses 
have identified flightcrew performance and error as significant factors 
in a majority of accidents involving transport category airplanes. Some 
errors may be influenced by the design of the systems the flightcrew 
uses to operate the airplane and by the flightcrew interfaces of those 
systems, even those that are carefully designed.
    The design of the flight deck and other systems may influence 
flightcrew task performance and may also affect the rate of occurrence 
and effects of flightcrew errors.
    Human error is generally characterized as a deviation from what is 
considered correct in some context. In the hindsight of analysis of 
accidents, incidents, or other events of interest, these deviations 
might include an inappropriate action, a difference from what is 
expected in a procedure, a mistaken decision, a slip of the fingers in 
typing, an omission of some kind, and many other examples.

A. Statement of the Problem

    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) 
through its Human Factors Harmonization Working Group to review 
existing regulations and recommend measures to address the contribution 
of design and certification of transport category airplane flight decks 
to flightcrew error. The ARAC submitted its recommendations to the FAA 
in a report, Human Factors--Harmonization Working Group (HFHWG) Final 
Report, dated June 15, 2004. This final rule implements these 
recommendations.
    The HFHWG acknowledged that existing regulations are designed to 
address differing aspects of flightcrew performance. Flightcrew 
capabilities are carefully considered through--
    1. Airworthiness standards for the issuance of type certificates 
for airplanes (14 CFR part 25);
    2. Airplane operating requirements (14 CFR part 121);
    3. Certification and operating requirements (14 CFR part 119); and

[[Page 25841]]

    4. Requirements for issuing pilot certificates and ratings (14 CFR 
part 61).
    Taken together, these requirements provide a high degree of 
operational safety in the air transportation system. They take into 
consideration equipment design, training, qualifications for pilot 
certificates, airplane operations and procedures, and the interaction 
of systems, equipment and personnel and how each contribute to 
operating safely through risk management.
    However, the HFHWG noted that design characteristics can contribute 
to flightcrew error. They recommended that more explicit requirements 
for design attributes related to managing and avoiding flightcrew error 
be included to augment the existing regulations. These requirements are 
codified in new Sec.  25.1302.
    EASA incorporated these same regulations in 2006 based on the ARAC 
recommendations. The requirements in the new Sec.  25.1302 are 
harmonized with those in the current EASA CS 25.1302 (Amendment 25/3). 
Thus, this rulemaking eliminates regulatory differences between the 
applicable sections of the U.S. and Europe.

B. Current Requirements

    Several existing regulations apply to aspects of flightcrew 
performance. These regulations are listed and discussed in the ARAC 
report, Human Factors--Harmonization Working Group Final Report, June 
15, 2004, which is posted on the FAA Web site https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TAEhfhT1-072299.pdf.

C. Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 
February 3, 2011 (76 FR 6088) and posted the draft of AC 25.1302 for 
comment at the same time. The proposed rule augments existing generally 
applicable rules with more explicit requirements for design attributes 
related to avoiding and managing flightcrew error. The comment period 
closed on April 4, 2011 for both documents.
    This rule is one aspect of a balanced approach involving both 
design approval requirements in the minimum airworthiness standards of 
part 25 and requirements for training/licensing/qualification, 
operations, and procedures such as those found in parts 61, 91, 121, 
and 135.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Airbus, the Boeing Company, the 
Cessna Aircraft Company, the Garmin Company, the Mitsubishi Company and 
the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). The commenters 
discussed the following:
     Airbus had no comments on Sec.  25.1302 and four comments 
on Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1302.
     Boeing welcomed Sec.  25.1302 and had ``no specific 
comments on the proposed rule.''
     ALPA supports the new Sec.  25.1302 as well as AC 25.1302.
     Cessna stated the ``content of this regulation is indeed 
good and valuable; however demonstrating and documenting compliance to 
the stated requirements will very likely impose a large burden on the 
part of the applicant.''
     Garmin also commented on cost and burden.
     Both Cessna and Garmin are concerned with future 
delegation of findings.
     Cessna and Mitsubishi both commented on the example of an 
intentional error described in the preamble.
    None of the commenters opposed the proposed rule.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

Cost of Rule

    The economic analysis for the proposed rule stated there would be 
no additional costs to transport airplane manufacturers as they are 
already in compliance or intend to fully comply with the EASA standard. 
Cessna and Garmin commented that the cost impact of this rule is not 
small and unimportant.
    Cessna believes substantial nonrecurring cost will result from 
demonstrating compliance with this rule. In addition to securing the 
services of human factors specialists, substantial time and cost will 
be associated with the ``more methodological approach'' specified in 
Figure 1 of Advisory Circular 25.1302.
    The FAA notes all new transport airplane type certificate (TC) 
applicants, including Cessna, are expected to seek EASA validation. In 
response to our request for clarification, Cessna explicitly did not 
dispute our statement in the NPRM that ``The requirements of these 
proposed standards are similar to those in the current EASA CS 25.1302. 
Means of compliance are intended to be identical.'' The costs to which 
Cessna refers are unavoidable if Cessna is to comply with the current 
CS 25.1302, as well as our rule. There are no incremental costs as a 
result of the harmonization of standards itself. Accordingly, no change 
was made to this rule as a result of this comment.
    Garmin commented that ``very few applicants have truly complied 
with the EASA rule and many manufacturers have noted increased cost and 
certification burden in showing compliance to the rule. Additionally, 
very few `clean sheet' aircraft certifications have been performed 
since 2006, while a majority of certification projects typically 
involve type design changes to already certified aircraft (examples 
include updating avionics systems, engines, drag reduction, interior 
enhancements, etc). In this process applicants often are not required 
to comply with the latest certification regulations. The FAA's draft AC 
25.1302 makes clear the proposed rule's applicability is not limited to 
new TC designs but is also intended for STC design changes.'' Garmin 
believes the FAA may not have considered the cost impact of these 
efforts.
    For design changes, increased costs result only if both of the 
following are true:
    1. The project would not be expected to seek EASA validation, and
    2. The certification basis for the design change is updated to 
include this rule.
    The requirements of Sec.  21.101, Designation of Applicable 
Regulations, will determine which future design changes need to have 
the certification basis updated to include the requirements of this 
final rule. Minor changes to the flight deck are not considered 
significant product-level changes and would not warrant changing the 
certification basis under Sec.  21.101. Significant changes to the 
flight deck do require an updated certification basis; however, costs 
associated with the updated certification basis required by Sec.  
21.101 were accounted for in the economic evaluation for that rule.
    As noted in the Benefits discussion of Type Certification 
Procedures for Changed Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000), compliance 
is required with all later regulations where such compliance will 
contribute materially to the level of safety.
    The requirements of Sec.  21.101 do not require compliance with 
later regulations under the following circumstances:
    (1) If the change in the aeronautical product is not significant,
    (2) for those areas or components of the product not affected by 
the change,
    (3) if such compliance would not contribute materially to the level 
of safety of the changed product,

[[Page 25842]]

    (4) or in the final analysis, if such compliance would be 
impractical; i.e., would result in costs that would not commensurate 
with the safety benefit that would be derived.
    Therefore, the incremental costs for changed products have already 
been justified by the benefits and are not attributable to this 
rulemaking. Accordingly, no change was made to this rule as a result of 
this comment.

Applicability and Scope

    Manufacturers are concerned about the broad applicability of the 
rule.
    Cessna expressed concern about documentation needed when the 
applicant seeks a design approval before a training program is 
accepted. Cessna stated that in nearly every case, the aircraft 
manufacturer is going to seek aircraft certification prior to training 
program acceptance. So, in nearly every situation, the original 
equipment manufacturer (OEM) would have to guess the impacts on 
training time because the training provider is rarely involved, or even 
selected in some cases, at that early phase due to company 
confidentiality with new products.
    The FAA is aware that applicants may have different processes for 
developing a training program while simultaneously seeking design 
approval. Given these different processes, the applicant only needs to 
document novel, complex, or highly integrated design features and any 
new and different design assumptions that have the potential to affect 
training time or flightcrew procedures. It is not necessary to document 
the impact on training time to receive a design approval. However, the 
close relationship between design requirements and requirements for 
training, licensing, operations and procedures is recognized and is 
also clarified in AC 25.1302.
    Cessna recommended more specific information to address the 
possibility that failure conditions may present conflicting information 
on flightdeck displays. Cessna states that conflicting indications can 
be addressed by accomplishment of appropriate flightcrew procedures 
(i.e., selection of reversion display modes).
    Airworthiness design guidance regarding information conflicts is 
provided in AC 25-11A and AC 25.1302. For example, AC 25-11A provides 
guidance on reversion display modes. In addition, AC 25.1302 paragraph 
5-8 C 1 (d) states: ``The applicant should describe what conclusion the 
flightcrew is expected to draw and what action should be taken when 
information on the display conflicts with other information on the 
flightdeck either with or without a failure.'' Other examples can be 
found by searching for the word ``failure'' in AC 25.1302. These issues 
are also covered as part of the systems safety assessment required by 
Sec.  25.1309. We do agree with Cessna that when the flightcrew is 
fully aware of and understands the information conflict, crew 
procedures may be used to help flightcrew members make display 
reversion selections or to ignore the erroneous information.
    Cessna stated there was no discussion regarding the interface with 
other equipment, such as the electronic flight bag (EFB). AC 120-76A 
provides guidance for Class 3 EFB's; however, Class 1 and 2 EFB's are 
considered portable electronic devices that are not part of the 
airplane type design, and thus conflicts between information on these 
devices and installed systems are not covered under Sec.  25.1302.
    Cessna remarked that Sec.  25.1302(a) requires that information on 
all possible functions and features for all flight deck equipment be 
included in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). Cessna acknowledged the 
intent of Sec.  25.1302 is to require ``necessary information'' for the 
flightcrew to properly accomplish tasks associated with use of 
equipment, which should not require an exhaustive discussion of all 
possible functions or uses. Cessna stated that identifying and 
addressing every possible function or use of all installed equipment, 
especially for a flight management system (FMS) with extensive 
capabilities and features, would result in voluminous written material 
which is of little benefit to the flightcrew.
    Cessna suggests limiting the provision of information in the AFM to 
only what is necessary for the airplane in its operational environment. 
More extensive discussions of ``all features and capabilities'' could 
be in the information provided by the equipment manufacturer (e.g., a 
Pilot's Guide).
    Cessna is correct that the intent is that flightcrews be provided 
with all ``necessary information.'' However, we do not agree that Sec.  
25.1302(a) requires all information to be in the AFM. A major function 
of Sec.  25.1302 is to require that installed systems, rather than the 
AFM, provide information needed by the crew. Section 25.1302 does not 
require an exhaustive discussion of all possible functions or uses, but 
does require a discussion of the tasks associated with the intended 
function as further clarified in AC 25.1302. Guidance for the level of 
information of the equipment's intended function and types of documents 
needed to show compliance with Sec.  25.1302(a) is contained in section 
5-3 of AC 25.1302.
    ALPA stated that the provisions contained in the NPRM and AC should 
apply to both normal and non-normal operations. These provisions call 
for equipment to be designed so the flightcrew can safely perform the 
tasks associated with the equipment's intended function in both normal 
and non-normal operations. ALPA noted the AC includes this provision, 
but the NPRM does not, and proposes that the following text be added to 
the introductory paragraph of Sec.  25.1302: ``The applicant must show 
that these systems and installed equipment, individually and in 
combination with other such systems and equipment, are designed so that 
qualified flightcrew members trained in their use can safely perform 
all of the tasks associated with the systems' and equipment's intended 
function `during normal and non-normal conditions'.''
    The FAA notes this issue is addressed under the heading, 
``Applicability and Scope'' of the NPRM preamble. The FAA envisions 
that equipment will be designed so the flightcrew can safely perform 
tasks associated with the equipment's intended function. This 
requirement would apply to operations in both normal and non-normal 
conditions, since the requirements of Sec.  25.1302 are generally 
applicable and not limited to specific conditions. Therefore, we did 
not change the rule in this regard.

Ambiguity in the Rule

    Cessna suggested that ``the FAA and foreign regulatory agencies 
have little experience in establishing compliance with highly 
subjective criteria such as stated in the proposed rule, and this will 
likely lead to ambiguity and differences of opinion among the agencies 
and individual offices within the agencies.''
    The FAA notes that the rule, its guidance material, and 
harmonization with EASA's regulations will provide more structure, 
reduce ambiguity, and help resolve differences of opinion. It is the 
lack of any criteria that leads to differences. The methods of 
compliance established in AC 25.1302 provide acceptable ways for 
applicants to address the performance-based aspects of the rule. As is 
often the case, we expect that as the FAA and industry gain experience 
with Sec.  25.1302, those methods of compliance will be further 
refined. The FAA did not change the rule language based on the above 
comments.

[[Page 25843]]

Delegation and Oversight

    Both Cessna and Garmin expressed concerns about delegation and 
oversight of proposed Sec.  25.1302. Cessna saw no clear path for 
delegation of compliance findings for the requirements of Sec.  25.1302 
to authorized individuals or organizations. No Unit Member (UM) or 
Designated Engineering Representative (DER) chart exists for Human 
Factors (HF), so Cessna assumed either there would be no delegation in 
this area or the delegation would be accomplished through creative use 
of the ``special'' delegation on other systems charts. Cessna stated, 
``the FAA has not been willing to approve this delegation for HF 
specialists in the past,'' and suggested ``the FAA needs a well thought 
out approach to HF issues prior to simply adopting this regulation for 
harmonization with EASA.''
    Cessna further stated in a follow-up discussion that the proposed 
FAA requirements and guidance for Sec.  25.1302 are similar to those of 
EASA, but not identical. Cessna stated EASA has a process for 
delegating findings to the FAA or a designee, but the FAA currently 
lacks a delegation process and this will result in additional costs for 
this rule ``should the applicant have to wait for availability of 
limited FAA human factors specialists in finding compliance.''
    Garmin stated that there is a question of designee oversight and 
authority. It is not clear who is delegated to make findings of 
compliance in this proposed rule or corresponding AC.
    The FAA recognizes the need to plan an approach for delegation and 
oversight. The FAA will strive to work with industry and designees to 
develop the experience necessary to delegate in this area. This may 
initially result in limitations requiring the FAA's review of designee 
recommendations before we fully delegate the findings. Until the FAA 
and designees have gained experience in applying the standards and 
recommending findings of compliance, we will not fully delegate the 
findings. This is typical of all new airworthiness standards.
    We are currently defining the roles and responsibilities for all HF 
specialists in the FAA Aircraft Certification Service. These actions 
will also aid in determining the technical roles and responsibilities 
of potential HF designees. When the work is completed, we intend to 
develop a plan for formalizing HF delegation. Until that time, we 
expect that formal findings of compliance to Sec.  25.1302 will be 
handled by limiting designees approval authority until they have 
established their knowledge, skills, and abilities to make HF findings. 
We have not changed the rule language based on this comment.
    We also note that whatever the costs incurred owing to initially 
limited delegation, these costs are unavoidable if the applicant is to 
comply with the current CS 25.1302, as well as our rule. There are no 
incremental costs as a result of the harmonization of standards itself. 
The existence of a delegation program is desirable for many reasons, 
including reduced certification burden to both the FAA and 
manufacturers. However, a delegation program does not create any 
incremental costs or reduce savings that may result from harmonization 
of the FAA standards with EASA standards.

Redundancy of Rule

    Cessna stated the proposed rule is redundant for certain controls 
already installed in the cockpit. The proposed rule should clarify that 
controls addressed in Sec. Sec.  25.777 and 25.779 are excluded from 
the requirements of Sec.  25.1302.
    Section 25.1302 is generally applicable and not intended to replace 
more specific rules. We consider Sec. Sec.  25.777, 25.779, and 25.1302 
to be consistent and mutually supportive. We do not believe that 
showing compliance with Sec. Sec.  25.777 or 25.779 would in any way 
conflict with the requirements of Sec.  25.1302. However, showing 
compliance with those specific rules is not sufficient, by itself, to 
show that flightcrew errors associated with controls have been properly 
addressed as required by Sec.  25.1302. Therefore, compliance with 
Sec.  25.1302 for flight deck controls still must be shown.

Equipment Behavior and Pilot Background

    Cessna commented the proposal appears to ignore pilot background. 
Many pilots express different perceptions of the same equipment based 
on their prior background. Cessna believes this is a significant 
contributor to their perception of equipment function and operation. If 
the intent of the ``qualified flightcrew'' in Sec.  25.1301(c)(1) is to 
eliminate prior bias from earlier training and/or operation of other 
systems, it is not clear. Cessna also made a related statement on error 
management and prior training and recommended a clear statement of the 
level of training presumed.
    While we understand the concern, this rule is not intended to 
directly address prior bias from earlier training or operation of other 
systems. This rule assumes at least the minimum flightcrew requirements 
for the intended operation, as discussed at the beginning of subchapter 
5-2 of AC 25.1302. We do not intend that the design must compensate for 
deficiencies in flightcrew training or experience. Given the 
qualification assumption, the behavior of the installed equipment must 
be predictable and unambiguous to the flightcrew. AC 25.1322-1, chapter 
5-6 also provides additional information regarding system behavior.

Intentional Errors

    Cessna took issue with the preamble statement, ``An example of an 
intentional error that might occur would be a situation where an alert 
occurs, but the flightcrew does not perform the associated procedure 
because they believe it to be a nuisance alert.'' In this situation, 
Sec.  25.1302(d) requires the applicant to show that this error can be 
detected. Cessna interpreted this statement to mean it is an ``error'' 
to ignore something intentionally, and thus the applicant has to make 
sure the pilot detects and manages the fact that he or she is ignoring 
something intentionally. Cessna suggested that the statement should 
focus on reducing the number of nuisance alerts. Mitsubishi Aircraft 
Corporation also commented on the same example and suggested deleting 
the sentence and referring to Sec.  25.1322.
    We agree with Cessna that not responding to a valid alert is an 
error. In this example, the flightcrew ignores the alert since they 
believe it is not valid. Cessna is also correct in stating that the 
design must provide a means to allow the flightcrew to manage the error 
as stated in Sec.  25.1302(d). In response to Cessna's comment that the 
rule should promote the reduction of nuisance alerts, we note that this 
requirement is already included in Sec. Sec.  25.1322(d) and 
25.1322(d)(1).
    We do not agree with Mitsubishi that the sentence should be deleted 
since this is a good illustration of an intentional error. Mitsubishi 
requested to ``instead, cover the proposed rule with the existing 
regulation and statement from Sec.  25.1322(d).'' The error discussed 
in the preamble is the intentional act of disregarding a valid alert. 
This sentence is still warranted to illustrate the distinction for the 
appropriate application of this regulation. The example in this 
sentence demonstrates the flightcrew's misinterpretation of a valid 
alert as being a nuisance alert (i.e., it is invalid) which may be 
caused by design deficiencies that lead to frequent nuisance alerts. 
This is one underlying design deficiency that Sec.  25.1302 is intended 
to address. While this

[[Page 25844]]

particular example relates to nuisance alerts, there may be other 
design characteristics that lead flightcrew members to make other kinds 
of intentional errors.
    No changes to the rule text were made based on these comments.

Type of Flightcrew Participation

    ALPA suggested the rule promote design for active flightcrew 
participation, as opposed to design for passive flightcrew involvement, 
i.e., systems that only monitor operation. ALPA suggested keeping the 
flightcrew actively involved in the process of controlling all the 
aircraft systems, equipment, and the aircraft itself, so that they 
understand the situation better. Active designs would enable the 
flightcrew to detect failures better and intervene quicker in airplane 
operation.
    While it may be desirable for the flightcrew to be ``actively 
involved'' with some systems, the FAA believes it is not appropriate to 
require ``active involvement'' for all systems and equipment. Such a 
mandated involvement may impose a significant workload on the 
flightcrew. However, the FAA agrees the design should enable the 
flightcrew to understand the situation, detect failures, and determine 
the need for intervention in a timely manner. Unrelated to the ALPA 
comment, the FAA clarified the intent of this rule for controls and 
information with the following change (shown in italic) to the rule 
language in this same section: ``Flight deck controls must be installed 
to allow accomplishment of all the tasks required to safely perform the 
equipment's intended function and information must be provided to the 
flightcrew that is necessary to accomplish the defined tasks.'' This 
wording change provides clarity while remaining in harmony with the 
intent of the EASA CS 25.1302(a) language.

Visibility of System and Equipment Displays

    ALPA commented that AC 25.1302 discusses the need for the system 
and equipment displays to be visible in all lighting conditions. ALPA 
supports this and recommends revising Sec.  25.1302(b)(1) as follows: 
``Be provided in a clear and unambiguous manner at a resolution and 
precision appropriate to the task in all lighting conditions and in all 
phases of flight (additions in italicized text).''
    The FAA generally agrees with the ALPA recommendation; however, the 
rule already requires a ``clear and unambiguous manner at a resolution 
and precision appropriate to the task'' in all phases of flight, which 
would indicate the flightcrew would need sufficient lighting for 
controls and information to be clear and unambiguous. This issue is 
covered in AC 25.1302. No change to the rule language was made as a 
result of this comment.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) 
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) 
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing 
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impact of the final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows similar logic used in 
the NPRM. The final rule, Sec.  25.1302, addresses human factors as 
they apply to installed equipment on the flight deck because crew 
limitations and design-related errors are not currently covered by the 
regulations in so specific a manner. The final rule will harmonize with 
EASA's CS 25.1302, which is already in effect and for which there is no 
counterpart in the current CFR. This final rule will require compliance 
from manufacturers and modifiers of transport category aircraft. A 
review of current manufacturers has revealed they already meet or 
intend to meet the EASA standard as it exists in CS 25.1302. The 
compliance of manufacturers with the EASA requirements increase safety 
by (1) reducing the likelihood of flight crew errors and (2) enabling 
detection and recovery from errors that do occur, or mitigating their 
effects. Since the manufacturers intend to comply with the EASA 
requirements, there will be no additional safety benefits from 
compliance with this rule. And since the requirements in the final rule 
are identical to those in CS 25.1302, the manufacturers will incur no 
additional costs. We received no comments on the NPRM regarding a 
similar determination. Although there are no additional costs or 
benefits accruing to manufacturers as a result of this final rule, the 
rule does promote the social benefit of international cooperation 
between the FAA and EASA. The FAA therefore has determined that this 
final rule has benefits that justify the costs and does not warrant a 
full regulatory evaluation.
    The FAA has also determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-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

[[Page 25845]]

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    The FAA believes that this final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following 
reason: As noted above, this final rule will not entail additional 
costs to manufacturers as they are already in compliance or intend to 
fully comply with the EASA standard. We received no comments from small 
entities on the same determination made in the NPRM. Therefore as the 
FAA Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it 
will promote international trade by harmonizing with corresponding 
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final rule. To the extent you may have comments on the information 
collection burdens associated with the aircraft certification 
application process, please direct those comments to the information 
collection associated with OMB Control Number 2120-0018.
International Compatibility
    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform its 
regulations to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and found no ICAO 
standards comparable to Sec.  25.1302.

F. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in FAA Order 1050.1E, Chapter 3, Paragraph 312d 
and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

G. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner 
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to 
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation 
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, the 
FAA requested comments on whether the final rule should apply 
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. The agency did not 
receive any comments and has determined, based on the administrative 
record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory 
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 
The agency determined that this rule is adopted under public 
participation with an open exchange of all stakeholders. The rule is 
tailored to impose the least burden on society while obtaining 
regulatory objectives. It is a carefully written rule which harmonizes 
with the existing EASA rule and minimizes the cumulative effects of new 
and existing rules in human factors.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order (EO) 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting 
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that 
this action would eliminate differences between U.S. aviation standards 
and those of other civil aviation authorities by harmonizing EASA CS 
25.1302 with

[[Page 25846]]

this new rule. Transport Canada will also harmonize with this new rule 
after it is issued.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using 
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, 
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. 
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Human factors, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 
as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704

0
2. Add Sec.  25.1302 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1302  Installed systems and equipment for use by the 
flightcrew.

    This section applies to installed systems and equipment intended 
for flightcrew members' use in operating the airplane from their 
normally seated positions on the flight deck. The applicant must show 
that these systems and installed equipment, individually and in 
combination with other such systems and equipment, are designed so that 
qualified flightcrew members trained in their use can safely perform 
all of the tasks associated with the systems' and equipment's intended 
functions. Such installed equipment and systems must meet the following 
requirements:
    (a) Flight deck controls must be installed to allow accomplishment 
of all the tasks required to safely perform the equipment's intended 
function, and information must be provided to the flightcrew that is 
necessary to accomplish the defined tasks.
    (b) Flight deck controls and information intended for the 
flightcrew's use must:
    (1) Be provided in a clear and unambiguous manner at a resolution 
and precision appropriate to the task;
    (2) Be accessible and usable by the flightcrew in a manner 
consistent with the urgency, frequency, and duration of their tasks; 
and
    (3) Enable flightcrew awareness, if awareness is required for safe 
operation, of the effects on the airplane or systems resulting from 
flightcrew actions.
    (c) Operationally-relevant behavior of the installed equipment must 
be:
    (1) Predictable and unambiguous; and
    (2) Designed to enable the flightcrew to intervene in a manner 
appropriate to the task.
    (d) To the extent practicable, installed equipment must incorporate 
means to enable the flightcrew to manage errors resulting from the 
kinds of flightcrew interactions with the equipment that can be 
reasonably expected in service. This paragraph does not apply to any of 
the following:
    (1) Skill-related errors associated with manual control of the 
airplane;
    (2) Errors that result from decisions, actions, or omissions 
committed with malicious intent;
    (3) Errors arising from a crewmember's reckless decisions, actions, 
or omissions reflecting a substantial disregard for safety; and
    (4) Errors resulting from acts or threats of violence, including 
actions taken under duress.


    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2013.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-10554 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P