17582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation standards can and should 

be assigned energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks information 

and comment regarding the possible 

consolidation of NEMA Design A and 

Design B motors into one equipment 

class and NEMA T- and U-frame motors 

into one equipment class for the 

purpose of its analysis and energy 

conservation standards. 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

preliminary conclusions included in 

Table 1 and Table 2. 

2. DOE seeks comment on whether 

the analyses performed for motors that 

currently have standards can be 

extended to those electric motors listed 

in Table 1 and Table 2. 

3. DOE seeks information regarding 

whether any of the motor types listed in 

Table 1 and Table 2 have any unique 

design features that affect the cost or 

efficiency of the motor compared to 

general purpose motors. 

a. If the cost-efficiency relationship 

for a comparable general purpose motor 

cannot be applied to the motor type in 

question, DOE requests information on 

the relationship between cost and 

efficiency. 

b. DOE requests information on 

whether a scaling relationship can be 

used to extend the cost-efficiency 

relationship of a general purpose motor 

to the motor type in question. 

4. DOE requests comment on the 

market share of each of these motor 

types listed in Table 1 and Table 2. 

5. DOE requests comment on the 

potential energy saved by including 

each motor type listed in Table 1 and 

Table 2 in the standards rulemaking. 

6. DOE seeks information on methods 

for testing the motors listed in Table 1 

and Table 2, and how they may differ 

from the current test procedures for 

electric motors. If a new test procedure 

is needed, DOE requests information on 

the reasons why such a new procedures 

is needed and the current availability 

and applicability of any test procedures 

or test methods. DOE also seeks 

confirmation of the accuracy of its 

understanding with respect to the 

testing of vertical shaft motors. 

7. DOE seeks information on any 

other types of definite purpose or 

special purpose motors not listed in 

Table 1 and Table 2 that DOE should 

consider including in this rulemaking. 

8. DOE seeks comment on the 

possible consolidation of NEMA Design 

A and Design B motors into one 

equipment class, and NEMA T- and Uframe motors into one equipment class. 

a. What are the possible differences in 

achievable efficiency between Design A 

and Design B motors? 

b. What are the respective market 

shares of Design A and Design B 

motors? 

c. What are the possible differences in 

achievable efficiency between U-frame 

and T-frame motors? 

d. What are the respective market 

shares of U-frame and T-frame motors? 

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7440 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM451; Notice No. 25–11–10– 

SC] 

Special Conditions: Bombardier Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

Airplanes, Head-Up Display (HUD) With 

Video Synthetic Vision System (SVS) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for Bombardier Model BD– 

700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. 

These airplanes, as modified by 

Bombardier Inc., will have a novel or 

unusual design features associated with 

a SVS that displays video imagery on 

the HUD. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by April 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM451, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356. You may deliver two 

copies to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

NM451. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Dunford, FAA, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2239 

facsimile (425) 227–1100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

You can inspect the docket before and 

after the comment closing date. If you 

wish to review the docket in person, go 

to the address in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want us to acknowledge receipt 

of your comments on this proposal, 

include with your comments a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

you have written the docket number. 

We will stamp the date on the postcard 

and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On January 26, 2007, Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), on 

behalf of Bombardier Inc., located in 

Montreal Canada, applied to the New 

York Aircraft Certification Office 

(NYACO) for FAA approval of a typedesign change on the Bombardier Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes. Per Type Certificate Data 

Sheet (TCDS) T00003NY, those aircraft 

models are known under the marketing 

designation of Global Express and 

Global 5000, respectively. The change is 

to introduce the Rockwell-Collins 

avionics suite to replace the existing 

Honeywell Primus 2000EP avionics 

suite. It includes the installation of a 

SVS that displays video imagery. 

Video display on the HUD constitutes 

new and novel technology for which the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17583 

FAA has no certification criteria. Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) 25.773 does not permit visual 

distortions and reflections that could 

interfere with the pilot’s normal duties 

and was not written in anticipation of 

such technology. Other applications for 

certification of such technology are 

anticipated in the near future and 

magnify the need to establish FAA 

safety standards that can be applied 

consistently for all such approvals. 

Special conditions are therefore 

proposed as prescribed under the 

provisions of § 21.16. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, Bombardier Inc. must show that 

the Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 

and BD–700–1A11 airplanes, as 

changed, continue to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in T00003NY 

or the applicable regulations in effect on 

the date of application for the change. 

The regulations incorporated by 

reference in the type certificate are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘original 

type certification basis.’’ The regulations 

incorporated by reference in T00003NY 

are as follows: 

Based on the application date, January 

26, 2007, under the provisions of 

§ 21.101, the applicable typecertification standards for the 

modification to the Bombardier Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes are as follows: 

Airworthiness & Environmental 

Standards for Components and Areas 

Not Affected by the Change 

The original certification basis for the 

Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 and 

BD–700–1A11 airplanes shown on 

TCDS T00003NY, Revision 13. 

Airworthiness and Environmental 

Standards for Components and Areas 

Affected by the Change 

14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 

1965, including the latest applicable 

requirements of Amendments 25–1 

through 25–119. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Bombardier Model BD–700– 

1A10 and BD–700–1A11 airplanes 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 14 

CFR 21.16. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, or should any 

other model already included on the 

same type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under § 21.101. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Bombardier Model BD– 

700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 airplanes 

must comply with the fuel-vent and 

exhaust-emission requirements of 14 

CFR part 34 and the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36 . 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type-certification basis under 14 

CFR 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 

and BD–700–1A11 airplanes will 

incorporate the following novel or 

unusual design features: 

An SVS that displays video imagery 

on a HUD. 

Discussion 

For many years the FAA has 

approved, on transport category 

airplanes, the use of HUD that display 

flight symbology, without a significant 

visual obscuration of the outside view. 

When the FAA began to evaluate the 

display of enhanced vision system 

(EVS) imagery on the HUD, significant 

potential to obscure the outside view 

became apparent, contrary to the 

requirements of 14 CFR 25.773. This 

rule does not permit distortions and 

reflections in the pilot-compartment 

view that can interfere with normal 

duties, and the rule was not written in 

anticipation of such technology. The 

video image potentially interferes with 

the pilot’s ability to see the natural 

scene in the center of the forward field 

of view. Therefore, the FAA issued 

special conditions for such HUD/EVS 

installations to ensure that the level of 

safety required by § 25.773 would be 

met even when the image might 

partially obscure the outside view. 

While many of the characteristics of 

EVS and SVS video differ in some ways, 

they have one thing in common; the 

potential for interference with the 

outside view through the airplane 

windshield. The FAA proposes special 

conditions for new and novel 

technologies to achieve equivalent 

levels of safety. 

Although the pilot may readily be 

able to see around and through small, 

individual, stroke-written symbols on 

the HUD, the pilot may not be able to 

see around or through the image that 

fills the display without some 

interference of the outside view. 

Nevertheless, the SVS may be capable of 

meeting the required level of safety 

when considering the combined view of 

the image and the outside scene visible 

to the pilot through the image. It is 

essential that the pilot can use this 

combination of image and natural view 

of the outside scene as safely and 

effectively as the pilot-compartment 

view currently available without the 

SVS image. 

Because § 25.773 does not provide for 

any alternatives or considerations for 

such a new and novel system, the FAA 

establishes safety requirements that 

assure an equivalent level of safety and 

effectiveness of the pilot-compartment 

view as intended by that rule. The 

purpose of this special condition is to 

provide the unique pilot-compartmentview requirements for the SVS 

installation. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the 

Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 and 

BD–700–1A11 airplanes. Should 

Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for 

a change to the type certificate to 

include another model incorporating the 

same novel or unusual design feature, 

the special conditions would apply to 

that model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on 

Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 and 

BD–700–1A11 airplanes. It is not a rule 

of general applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44702, and 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type-certification basis for 

Bombardier Model BD–700–1A10 and 

BD–700–1A11 airplanes. 

1. During any phase of flight in which 

it is to be used, the SVS imagery on the 

HUD must not degrade flight safety or 

interfere with the effective use of 

outside visual references for required 

pilot tasks. 

2. To avoid unacceptable interference 

with the safe and effective use of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

pilot-compartment view, the SVS must 

meet the following requirements: 

a. The SVS design must minimize 

unacceptable display characteristics or 

artifacts (e.g., terrain shadowing against 

a dark background) that obscure the 

desired image of the scene, impair the 

pilot’s ability to detect and identify 

visual references, mask flight hazards, 

distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade 

task performance or safety. 

b. Control of SVS image display 

brightness must be sufficiently effective 

in dynamically changing background 

(ambient) lighting conditions to avoid 

pilot distraction, impairment of the 

pilot’s ability to detect and identify 

visual references, masking of flight 

hazards, or to otherwise degrade task 

performance or safety. If automatic 

control for image brightness is not 

provided, it must be shown that a 

single, manual setting is satisfactory for 

the range of lighting conditions 

encountered during a time-critical, highworkload phase of flight (e.g., lowvisibility instrument approach). 

c. A readily accessible control must be 

provided that permits the pilot to 

immediately deactivate and reactivate 

display of the SVS image on demand, 

without having to remove hands from 

the flight controls and throttles. 

d. The SVS image on the HUD must 

not impair the pilot’s use of guidance 

information, or degrade the presentation 

and pilot awareness of essential flight 

information displayed on the HUD, such 

as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and 

direction, approach guidance, 

windshear guidance, TCAS resolution 

advisories, or unusual-attitude recovery 

cues. 

e. The SVS image and the HUD 

symbols, which are spatially referenced 

to the pitch scale, outside view, and 

image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., 

conformal) to the external scene. In 

addition, the SVS image and the HUD 

symbols—when considered singly or in 

combination—must not be misleading, 

cause pilot confusion, or increase 

workload. Airplane attitudes or crosswind conditions may cause certain 

symbols (e.g., the zero-pitch line or 

flight-path vector) to reach field-of-view 

limits, such that they cannot be 

positioned conformally with the image 

and external scene. In such cases, these 

symbols may be displayed but with an 

altered appearance that makes the pilot 

aware that they are no longer displayed 

conformally (for example, ‘‘ghosting’’). 

The combined use of symbology and 

runway image may not be used for path 

monitoring when path symbology is no 

longer conformal. 

f. A HUD system used to display SVS 

images must, if previously certified, 

continue to meet all of the requirements 

of the original approval. 

3. The safety and performance of the 

pilot tasks associated with the use of the 

pilot-compartment view must be not be 

degraded by the display of the SVS 

image. These tasks include the 

following: 

a. Detection, accurate identification 

and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid 

traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other 

flight hazards. 

b. Accurate identification and 

utilization of visual references required 

for every task relevant to the phase of 

flight. 

4. Appropriate limitations must be 

stated in the Operating Limitations 

section of the Airplane Flight Manual to 

prohibit the use of the SVS for functions 

that have not been found to be 

acceptable. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

18, 2011. 

K.C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7414 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0190; FRL–9287–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Determinations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2011, EPA 

published a proposal in the Federal 

Register to approve and disapprove 

portions of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Oklahoma and promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the Clean Air Act requirement for best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and to 

prevent emissions from Oklahoma 

sources from interfering with other 

states’ measures to protect visibility. In 

the notice EPA announced an open 

house and public hearing for the 

proposal to be held April 13, 2011, in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In this 

notice EPA is announcing an additional 

open house and public hearing to be 

held in Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 14, 

2011. More information is provided in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES: Public hearings, preceded by an 

open house, will be held on April 13, 

2011, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and 

April 14, 2011, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

ADDRESSES: The April 13, 2011, open 

house and public hearing will be held 

at the Metro Technology Centers, 

Springlake Campus, Business 

Conference Center, Meeting Rooms H 

and I, 1900 Springlake Drive, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma 73111, (405) 424–8324. 

The April 14, 2011, open house and 

public hearing will be held at the Tulsa 

Tech—Riverside Campus, in the 

Auditorium of the Alliance Conference 

Center, 801 East 91st Street, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74132, (918) 828–4000. 

Driving directions to the Tulsa Tech— 

Riverside Campus may also be found 

using the following address: 801 West K 

Place, Jenks, Oklahoma 74037. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Kordzi, EPA Region 6 Air Planning 

Section, telephone (214) 665–7186, email address r6air_okhaze@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. On March 22, 2011, we published 

a proposal in the Federal Register to (1) 

approve and disapprove portions of SIP 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Oklahoma and (2) promulgate a FIP to 

address the Clean Air Act requirement 

for BART for SO2 emissions and to 

prevent emissions from Oklahoma 

sources from interfering with other 

states’ measures to protect visibility. See 

76 FR 16168. Our proposal can be 

accessed online at 

http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0190). In the 

notice we announced an open house 

and public hearing for the proposal to 

be held Wednesday, April 13, 2011, in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We have 

scheduled an additional open house and 

public hearing to be held in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma on Thursday, April 14, 2011. 

The Oklahoma City open house and 

public hearing is scheduled to be held 

on Wednesday April 13, 2011, at the 

Metro Technology Centers, Springlake 

Campus, Business Conference Center, 

Meeting Rooms H and I, 1900 

Springlake Drive, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma 73111, (405) 424–8324. The 

Metro Technology Centers Springlake 

Campus is located at the intersection of 

Martin Luther King Ave. and Springlake 

Drive between NE. 36th and NE. 50th 

just south of the Oklahoma City Zoo and 

Kirkpatrick Center. Parking for the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS