[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25840-25846]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile 425-227-
1007; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

    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 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TAEhfhT1-072299.pdf.

C. Summary of the NPRM

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

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Airbus, the Boeing Company, the
Cessna Aircraft Company, the Garmin Company, the Mitsubishi Company and
the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). The commenters
discussed the following:
     Airbus had no comments on 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,

    (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.

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

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

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

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

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

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

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

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

The Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 24563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10997]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85906; File No. S7-05-18]

Notice Establishing the Commencement and Termination Dates of the
Pre-Pilot Period of the Transaction Fee Pilot for National Market
System Stocks

May 21, 2019.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is hereby designating,
pursuant to Rule 610T(c)(2) of Regulation NMS, the commencement and
termination dates of the pre-Pilot period of the Transaction Fee Pilot
for National Market System stocks (``Pilot'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.610T(c)(2). On December 19, 2018, the Commission
adopted Rule 610T of Regulation NMS to conduct the Pilot. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84875 (December 19, 2018), 84 FR
5202 (February 20, 2019). On February 15, 2019, the New York Stock
Exchange LLC, the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,
and other affiliated entities (collectively, the ``petitioners'')
filed petitions in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (``Court of Appeals'') to review the
validity of Rule 610T. Petitioners also filed with the Commission
motions to stay implementation of Rule 610T pending resolution of
their petitions for review. On March 28, 2019, the Commission issued
an order granting, in part, petitioners' motions for a stay of Rule
610T pending a decision by the Court of Appeals and further order of
the Commission. That order stayed the Pilot and post-Pilot periods
identified in Rule 610T(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) in their entirety,
stayed the pre-Pilot period's data-reporting and public disclosure
requirements, see Rule 610T(d), but provided that the remainder of
Rule 610T--including the pre-Pilot period identified in Rule
610T(c)(i)(1)--otherwise would become effective in the ordinary
course and on further notice by the Commission. See In the Matter of
Rule 610T of Regulation NMS, Order Issuing Stay, Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 85447 (March 28, 2019) (``Partial Stay Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 610T(c)(1) provides that the Pilot shall include, among other
things, a six month pre-Pilot period.\2\ Rule 610T(c)(2) further
provides that the Commission shall designate by notice the commencement
and termination dates of, among other things, the pre-Pilot period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 242.610T(c)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.610T(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is issuing this notice to designate:
    1. July 1, 2019 as the pre-Pilot period's commencement date, and
    2. December 31, 2019 as the pre-Pilot period's termination date.
    During the pre-Pilot period, national securities exchanges subject
to Rule 610T are required to comply with the data compilation
requirements of Rule 610T(d) and (e).\4\ However, pursuant to the
Commission's Partial Stay Order of March 28, 2019, pending a decision
by the Court of Appeals regarding the petitions to review Rule 610T's
validity and further order of the Commission, these exchanges will not
be required to transmit order routing data to the Commission, or to
publicly post Exchange Transaction Fee Summaries.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Partial Stay Order, supra note 1, at 2.
    \5\ See Partial Stay Order at 2; Rule 610T(d), (e). As noted in
the Partial Stay Order, however, exchanges subject to Rule 610T may
transmit pre-Pilot data to Commission staff on a voluntary basis for
quality control purposes during the pendency of the stay. See
Partial Stay Order at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the
petitions for review, the Commission may issue further notices in
accordance with Rule 610T(b)(1) and (c)(2).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.610T(b)(1) (concerning the Initial List of Pilot
Securities) and (c)(2) (concerning the commencement and termination
dates of the Pilot and post-Pilot periods), respectively.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10997 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P