[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 72 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19958-19960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement Number ANM-99-2]


Guidance for FAA Review of Certification Plans To Address Human 
Factors for Certification of Transport Airplane Flight Decks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

[[Page 19959]]


ACTION: Disposition of comments on notice of policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the FAA addresses public comments that were 
submitted in response to a previously published general statement of 
policy that is applicable to the type certification process of 
transport category airplanes. The policy provides guidance to FAA 
Certification Teams that will enable them to conduct an effective 
review of an applicant's Human Factors Certification Plan or the human 
factors components of a general Certification Plan, when one is 
submitted as part of a type certification (TC), supplemental type 
certification (STC), or amended type certificate (ATC) project. This 
notice is to advise the public of the FAA's response to the comments 
that were submitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Hecht, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Transport Standards 
Staff, Airplane & Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2398; 
facsimile (425) 227-1100; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 6, 1999, the FAA published in the Federal Register (64 
FR 54399) a general statement of policy comprising guidance to FAA 
personnel for reviewing certain certification plans for transport 
category airplanes. Specifically, the policy statement provided 
internal guidance to FAA Certification Teams that will enable them to 
conduct an effective review of an applicant's Human Factors 
Certification Plan (or the human factors components of a general 
Certification Plan), when one is submitted at the beginning of a type 
certification (TC), supplemental type certification (STC), or amended 
type certificate (ATC) project. The guidance described the sections of 
a typical Human Factors Certification Plan and the information that 
would be appropriate for inclusion in each section. The purpose of a 
Human Factors Certification Plan is to facilitate the establishment 
early on of an effective working relationship and agreement between the 
FAA and the applicant about the means by which human factors issues 
will be addressed during a certification project.
    Although the policy was intended for internal use by FAA 
Certification Teams, the FAA published it in the Federal Register to 
notify the public about it, and invited comments from the public on the 
policy. The FAA has given due consideration to the comments received, 
and this notice provides the FAA's disposition of those comments.

Disposition of Comments

    The FAA received comments on the policy statement submitted by six 
commenters, representing aviation industry groups and manufacturers.
    Two commenters support the intent of the policy.
    Several of the commenters suggest certain editorial changes (i.e., 
word choices, formatting, and additional references) to improve the 
clarity and readability of the policy. The FAA may consider these 
suggested changes if the policy statement is updated and republished in 
the future.
    The remainder of the comments generally fall within three specific 
subject areas. These are addressed below.

1. Status and Effect of the General Statement of Policy

    Many of the comments concerned the nature of policy statements 
overall and the policy process in particular. The commenters question 
the ``effect'' of the policy, and whether the policy is ``proposed'' or 
``final.'' One commenter is not clear if the policy statement ``has 
reached the stage of being official FAA policy.'' One commenter refers 
to the policy as ``interim,'' while another considers it to be 
``proposed.''
    Another commenter is concerned that the policy, while not creating 
any new rules, implies new requirements or practices. This commenter 
notes that the policy statement contained several examples where the 
discussion moved into methods and processes for compliance that would 
be ``more appropriate as guidance material.'' This commenter also is 
concerned about updating the policy statement's appendices on a 
continuing basis (as was indicated in the notice). The commenter 
contends that the practice of updating material of this kind without 
prior public review ``appears to be outside the current practices of 
generation of advisory and rulemaking material.''
    As evidenced from these comments, the FAA acknowledges that there 
clearly is some confusion regarding the effect, intent, and meaning of 
published general statements of policy. In an effort to clarify this 
issue, the FAA offers the following explanation:
    In a commitment to bring more transparency to government, Federal 
agencies have begun to publish in the Federal Register general 
statements of policy concerning internal processes and procedures. By 
doing this, agencies are providing the public with access to 
information that previously would have been released only as internal 
agency memos and directives.
    A general statement of policy may be issued for different purposes, 
including:
     To advise the public of the manner in which the agency 
will exercise a discretionary power in subsequent adjudications or 
through rulemaking; or
     To provide guidance to agency officials in exercising 
their discretionary powers (and, at the same time, notify the public of 
this guidance).
    A general statement of policy may be issued to different audiences: 
Often policy statements address agency personnel, and sometimes they 
address the public.
    A general statement of policy is ``non-binding.'' This means that 
it does not constitute a new regulation and the agency cannot apply or 
rely upon it as law. Because they are non-binding, general statements 
of policy preserve the flexibility of the affected agency personnel and 
their opportunity to make individualized determinations.
    When a general statement of policy only announces what the agency 
has established as a policy, and/or merely provides guidance to agency 
officials in exercising their discretionary powers, a public notice-
and-comment procedure is not required under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. Unless the issuing agency specifically states that the 
policy is ``proposed'' and requests comments from the public to help in 
developing the final policy, a general statement of policy may be 
considered effective when it is published in the Federal Register (and 
it may have been in effect within the agency even before publication).
    In the case of the general statement of policy that is the subject 
of this notice, the FAA issued it as internal guidance to FAA 
Certification Teams. As indicated in the published policy statement, 
this guidance was necessary because increasing numbers of applicants 
have asked for assistance from the FAA in developing Human Factors 
Certification Plans. Given this trend, the Transport Airplane 
Directorate developed this guidance to assist FAA Certification Team 
members in working with applicants who are attempting to develop Human 
Factors Certification Plans, as well as in reviewing these plans after 
they have been submitted. The guidance provided is based on current 
regulations and practices; it does not add any new requirements.

[[Page 19960]]

    Although the policy was directed toward FAA personnel, the FAA 
considered that it also would be of use to applicants: If applicants 
were to develop a Certification Plan, they could use the information in 
the policy statement as a basis for communicating their approach to 
addressing the human factors aspects of their project.
    Although this policy is new, and may change as issues, technology, 
and regulations evolve, the FAA considers it to be currently in effect. 
FAA personnel have the discretion of applying the policy's guidelines, 
or not applying them when inappropriate.

2. The Current Need for the Policy

    Some commenters state that the policy is premature and should not 
be issued at this time for use in type certification programs. These 
commenters state that there is no current official requirement for a 
Human Factors Certification Plan, and the policy will only lead to 
confusion for applicants, aircraft manufacturers, and regulatory 
authorities. Several commenters suggest that the policy will require 
significant interpretation by the FAA Certification Teams and personnel 
at FAA Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO). These commenters also 
state that human factors issues in flight deck design are complex and 
there are other on-going efforts (discussed below) in place that will 
better address them on an international scale. These commenters suggest 
that the FAA reconsider the need for this policy at this time.
    The FAA does not concur with these commenters' suggestion that the 
policy is not needed. The FAA has placed great emphasis not only on the 
importance of human factors in design and certification, but on the 
need to define and understand how to apply human factors practices to 
our existing processes. The intent of the published general statement 
of policy was to address that need.
    While it is true that there is no regulatory requirement for a 
``Human Factors Certification Plan'' (or for a certification plan of 
any kind, for that matter), already many applicants for certification 
projects have developed such plans to communicate their approach to the 
identification and resolution of human factors issues. This type of 
plan is proving to be an effective means by which to establish an early 
and formal written agreement between the applicant and FAA on the 
certification basis, the methods of compliance, and the schedules for 
completing the certification project. This approach has helped FAA 
Certification Teams address issues early in the certification process, 
thereby decreasing the applicant's certification risk in cost or 
schedule.
    As stated previously, the number of applicants asking for 
assistance from the FAA in developing and/or reviewing Human Factors 
Certification Plans has increased in recent years. In light of this, 
the FAA has seen a clear need to provide guidance at this time to FAA 
Certification personnel to assist them in helping these applicants 
develop plans, as well as in reviewing the plans that are submitted. 
The FAA considers that this formal internal policy is necessary to 
ensure standardization of internal procedures and consistent 
application of human factors in the certification process.
    Accordingly, the FAA regards the guidance as necessary, and does 
not consider it premature.

3. The Task of the Human Factors Harmonization Working Group

    Several of the commenters express concern that the development of 
guidance, such as that provided in the policy statement, should have 
been left to the Human Factors Harmonization Working Group (HFHWG). 
That Working Group was established (64 FR 39553, July 22, 1999) under 
the aegis of the FAA-sponsored Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC), and its members represent human factors experts from the 
aviation community and government authorities. The FAA tasked ARAC to 
provide advice and recommendations as to the need for regulations and/
or advisory material to address flight crew error and flight crew 
performance considerations in the flight deck certification process. 
Subsequently, ARAC asked the HFHWG to address this task.
    One commenter states that by issuing the policy statement, the FAA 
appears ``to be attempting to bypass the purpose of the HFHWG or to 
potentially compromise that Group's efforts.'' Several of the 
commenters state that the FAA should not issue the policy as official 
policy/guidance until the HFHWG activities are complete. One commenter 
states that existing regulations, advisory material, and manufacturers' 
human factors certification policies adequately cover the interim 
period pending completion of the HFHWG's activities. These commenters 
assert there should not be separate FAA and HFHWG activity on human 
factors issues, since it will likely lead to controversies, 
inconsistent application of guidance/policy, and dilution of the work 
of the HFHWG.
    For several reasons, the FAA does not concur with the commenters' 
assertions that the HFHWG is the appropriate entity for issuing 
guidance such as that contained in the policy statement.
    First, the described policy relates to an internal FAA process. 
Such processes are developed independent of ARAC activities, and the 
role of ARAC groups does not include defining how the FAA operates 
internally.
    Second, the HFHWG was tasked with activities that are different 
from and beyond the guidance provided by the policy statement. The 
HFHWG is to review relevant existing regulations and advisory material, 
and make recommendations about what regulatory standards and/or 
advisory material should be updated or developed to consistently 
address (1) design-related flight crew performance vulnerabilities, and 
(2) prevention and management of flight crew error. In contrast, the 
policy statement describes methods for considering applicants' 
proposals for compliance with existing requirements. The possible 
products of the HFHWG activity may or may not include the information 
and material that is provided in the policy statement. It is doubtful 
that the HFHWG will be focusing much attention on the substance of the 
guidance contained in the policy statement.
    Third, the activities of the HFHWG are not scheduled to be 
completed until approximately July 2002. As discussed previously, the 
FAA saw a need for issuing the guidance as soon as practicable to serve 
as an aid to FAA personnel in new certification projects.
    For these reasons, the FAA does not agree that the issuance of the 
policy statement in any way circumvents the on-going work of the HFHWG. 
In the long term, both the policy statement and the product(s) of the 
HFHWG will serve as important initial steps in facilitating the 
institutionalization of formal procedures that systematically 
incorporate human factors considerations into all aspects of airplane 
design and certification.

Conclusion

    After due consideration of the public comments submitted, the FAA 
finds no reason to amend or otherwise modify the general statement of 
policy as previously published.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2000.
Vi L. Lipski,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-9214 Filed 4-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P