Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55443 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 111 

[Notice 2009–24] 

Amendment of Agency Procedures for 

Probable Cause Hearings 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Agency procedure; amendment. 

SUMMARY: On November 19, 2007, the 

Federal Election Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) published a procedural 

rule making permanent a program 

allowing respondents in enforcement 

proceedings under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, to have a hearing before 

the Commission. The Commission is 

now amending its procedures to provide 

that the Commissioners may ask 

questions of the General Counsel and 

the Staff Director, and their staff, during 

probable cause hearings. This 

amendment will conform the 

procedures for enforcement hearing 

with the Commission’s procedures for 

audit hearing published earlier this 

year. 

DATES: The amended hearing 

procedures will be effective on October 

28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark D. Shonkwiler, Assistant General 

Counsel, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Election Commission is 

amending its procedures to provide that 

Commissioners may ask questions of the 

General Counsel and the Staff Director, 

and their staff, during probable cause 

hearings. 

I. Background 

On October 25, 2007, the Commission 

adopted an agency procedure that made 

permanent a program that allows 

respondents in enforcement proceedings 

under the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (‘‘FECA’’), to have a hearing before 

the Commission prior to the 

Commission’s consideration of the 

General Counsel’s recommendation on 

whether to find probable cause to 

believe that a violation has occurred. 

See Procedural Rules for Probable Cause 

Hearings, 72 FR 64919 (Nov. 19, 2007) 

(‘‘PC Hearing Procedures’’). In PC 

Hearing Procedures, the Commission 

indicated that during probable cause 

hearings, ‘‘[r]espondents (or their 

counsel) will have the opportunity to 

present their arguments, and 

Commissioners, the General Counsel, 

and the Staff Director will have the 

opportunity to pose questions to the 

respondent, or respondent’s counsel, if 

represented.’’ PC Hearing Procedures, 

72 FR at 64920. The PC Hearing 

Procedures did not specifically address 

whether Commissioners could pose 

questions to the General Counsel and 

the Staff Director during probable cause 

hearings. 

On June 25, 2009, based in part upon 

its experience with the probable cause 

hearing program, the Commission 

adopted a new agency procedure 

providing committees that are audited 

by the Commission, pursuant to the 

FECA, with the opportunity to have a 

hearing before the Commission prior to 

the Commission’s adoption of a Final 

Audit Report. See Procedural Rules for 

Audit Hearings, 74 FR 33140 (July 10, 

2009) (‘‘Audit Hearing Procedures’’). In 

Audit Hearing Procedures, the 

Commission indicated that during audit 

hearings, ‘‘Commissioners will have the 

opportunity to pose questions to the 

audited committee, and Commissioners 

may ask questions designed to elicit 

clarification from the Office of General 

Counsel or Office of the Staff Director.’’ 

Audit Hearing Procedures, 74 FR at 

33142. 

II. Amendment of Agency Procedures 

for Probable Cause Hearings 

Consistent with the recently adopted 

agency procedures for audit hearings, 

the Commission is amending its 

procedures for probable cause hearings 

to specifically provide that 

Commissioners may ask questions 

during probable cause hearings 

designed to elicit clarification from the 

Office of General Counsel or Office of 

the Staff Director. The Commission is 

not making any other changes to its 

procedures for probable cause hearings. 

Conclusion 

This document amends an agency 

practice or procedure. This document 

does not constitute an agency regulation 

requiring notice of proposed 

rulemaking, opportunities for public 

comment, prior publication, and delay 

effective under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’). 

The provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), which 

apply when notice and comment are 

required by the APA or another statute, 

are not applicable. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Dated: October 22, 2009. 

Steven T. Walther, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25900 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM416; Special Conditions No. 

25–393–SC] 

Special Conditions: Bombardier Model 

Challenger CL–600–2B16 (CL–605, Ref. 

Note 9 of TC No. A21EA); Enhanced 

Flight Vision System (EFVS) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Bombardier Model CL– 

600–2B16 (CL–605) airplane. This 

airplane, as modified by Rockwell 

Collins Aerospace & Electronics, Inc., 

will have an Enhanced Flight Vision 

System (EFVS). The EFVS is a novel or 

unusual design feature which consists 

of a head-up display (HUD) system 

modified to display forward-looking 

infrared (FLIR) radar imagery. The 

airworthiness regulations applicable to 

pilot compartment view 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: The effective date of these 

special conditions is October 9, 2009. 

We must receive your comments by 

December 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM416, 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. 

NM416. 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, Airplane and 

Flight Crew Interface, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2239; 

fax (425) 227–1320; e-mail: 

dale.dunford@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

has determined that the substance of 

these special conditions has previously 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
55444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

been subject to the public-comment 

process. These particular special 

conditions were recently issued and 

only three non-substantive comments 

were received during the publiccomment period. The FAA therefore 

finds that good cause exists for making 

these special conditions effective upon 

issuance. 

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 

about 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 by 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 these special 

conditions, include with your 

comments a self-addressed, 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 November 28, 2008, Rockwell 

Collins Aerospace & Electronics, Inc., 

applied for a supplemental type 

certificate for installation of a HUD/ 

EFVS system in the Bombardier Model 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–605). The Model No. 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–605) is a transport 

category airplane certified to carry a 

maximum of 19 passengers and a 

minimum of 2 crew members. The 

Model CL–605 is a marketing 

designation for the Challenger CL–600– 

2B16 (CL–604 Variant) with Modsums 

604DX10000, 604DX20000 and 

604DX30000 incorporated, beginning 

with aircraft S/N 5701 and subsequent 

numbers. The modification involves the 

installation of an EFVS. This system 

consists of a Rockwell Collins HUD 

system, modified to display FLIR 

imagery, and an FLIR camera. 

The electronic infrared image 

displayed between the pilot and the 

forward windshield represents a novel 

or unusual design feature in the context 

of 14 CFR 25.773. Section 25.773 was 

not written in anticipation of such 

technology. The electronic image has 

the potential to enhance the pilot’s 

awareness of the terrain, hazards, and 

airport features. At the same time, the 

image may partially obscure the pilot’s 

direct outside-compartment view. 

Therefore, the FAA needs adequate 

safety standards to evaluate the EFVS to 

determine that the imagery provides the 

intended visual enhancements without 

undue interference with the pilot’s 

outside-compartment view. The FAA 

intends that the pilot be able to use a 

combination of the information, seen in 

the image and the natural view of the 

outside scene appearing beyond and 

through the image, as safely and 

effectively as a pilot-compartment view 

without an EFVS image and that is 

compliant with § 25.773. 

Although the FAA has determined 

that the existing regulations are not 

adequate for certification of EFVSs, the 

FAA believes that EFVSs could be 

certified through the application of 

appropriate safety criteria. Therefore, 

the FAA has determined that special 

conditions should be issued for 

certification of EFVS to provide a level 

of safety equivalent to that provided by 

the standard in § 25.773. 

Note: The term ‘‘enhanced vision system’’ 

(EVS) has been commonly used to refer to a 

system comprised of a HUD, imaging 

sensor(s), and avionics interfaces that display 

the sensor imagery on the HUD, and overlay 

it with alpha-numeric and symbolic flight 

information. However, the term has also been 

commonly used in reference to systems that 

display the sensor imagery, with or without 

other flight information, on a head-down 

display. To avoid confusion, the FAA created 

the term ‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision System’’ 

(EFVS) to refer to certain EVS systems that 

meet the requirements of the new operational 

rules—in particular the requirement for a 

HUD and specified flight information—and 

can be used to determine ‘‘enhanced flight 

vision.’’ An EFVS can be considered a subset 

of systems otherwise labeled EVS. 

On January 9, 2004, the FAA 

published revisions to operational rules 

in 14 CFR parts 1, 91, 121, 125, and 135 

to allow aircraft to operate below certain 

altitudes during a straight-in instrument 

approach while using an EFVS to meet 

visibility requirements. 

Prior to this rule change, the FAA 

issued Special Conditions 25–180–SC, 

which approved the use of an EVS on 

Gulfstream Model G–V airplanes. These 

special conditions addressed the 

requirements for the pilot-compartment 

view and limited the scope of the 

intended functions permissible under 

the operational rules at the time. The 

intended function of the EVS imagery 

was to aid the pilot during instrument 

approach, and to allow the pilot to 

detect and identify the visual references 

for the intended runway down to 100 

feet above the touchdown zone. 

However, the EVS imagery alone was 

not to be used as a means to satisfy 

visibility requirements below 100 feet. 

The recent operational-rule change 

expands the permissible application of 

certain EVSs that are certified to meet 

the new EFVS standards. The new rule 

allows the use of EFVSs for operation 

below the minimum descent altitude 

(MDA) or decision height (DH) to meet 

new visibility requirements of 

§ 91.175(l). The purpose of this special 

condition is not only to address the 

issue of the ‘‘pilot-compartment view,’’ 

as was done by 25–180–SC, but also to 

define the scope of intended function 

consistent with § 91.175(l) and (m). 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, Rockwell Collins Aerospace & 

Electronics, Inc., must show that the 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2B16 (CL– 

605), as changed, continues to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. A21EA or the applicable 

regulations in effect on the date of 

application for 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 A21EA are as follows: 

Model CL–600–2B16 (604 Variant) 

Part 25 dated February 1, 1965, 

including Amendments 25–1 through 

25–78 with the following exceptions at 

Amendment: 

• 25–37 for §§ 25.109, 25.149, 25.365, 

25.561, 25.625, 25.701, 25.772, 25.783 

(except § 25.783(f)), 25.785 (except 

§ 25.785(g)), 25.789, 25.791, 25.801, 

25.803, 25.807, 25.809, 25.811, 25.812, 

25.813, 25.831, 25.853, 25.855, 25.857, 

25.1307, 25.1359, 25.1415, and 25.1419; 

• 25–37 for existing installations and 

Amendment 25–78 for new installations 

for §§ 25.963, 25.965, 25.994, 25.997, 

and 25.1438; 

• 25–38 for §§ 25.787 and 25.1439; 

• 25–40 for § 25.973; 

• 25–37 for § 25.109 (see note 7); 

• 25–44 for § 25.1413; 

• 25–54 for § 25.851; 

• 25–80 for § 25.1316. 

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 CL–600–2B16 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55445 

(CL–605), because of a novel or unusual 

design feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Bombardier Model CL– 

600–2B16 (CL–605) 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 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should Rockwell Collins 

Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. (the 

applicant), apply for a supplemental 

type certificate to modify any other 

model, included on the same type 

certificate to incorporate the same novel 

or unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Bombardier Model CL–600–2B16 

(CL–605) airplanes will incorporate 

EFVS, which is a novel or unusual 

design feature, because it projects a 

video image derived from an FLIR 

camera through the HUD. The EFVS 

image is projected in the center of the 

‘‘pilot-compartment view,’’ which is 

governed by § 25.773. The image is 

displayed with HUD symbology and 

overlays the forward outside view. 

Therefore, § 25.773 does not contain 

appropriate safety standards for the 

EFVS display. 

Operationally, during an instrument 

approach, the EFVS image is intended 

to enhance the pilot’s ability to detect 

and identify ‘‘visual references for the 

intended runway’’ [see § 91.175(l)(3)] to 

continue the approach below DH or 

MDA. Depending on atmospheric 

conditions and the strength of infrared 

energy emitted and/or reflected from the 

scene, the pilot can see these visual 

references in the image better than 

through the window without EFVS. 

Scene contrast detected by infrared 

sensors can be much different from that 

detected by natural pilot vision. On a 

dark night, thermal differences of 

objects, which are not detectable by the 

naked eye, will be easily detected by 

many imaging infrared systems. On the 

other hand, contrasting colors in visual 

wavelengths may be distinguished by 

the naked eye, but not by an imaging 

infrared system. Where thermal contrast 

in the scene is sufficiently detectable, 

the pilot can recognize shapes and 

patterns of certain visual references in 

the infrared image. However, depending 

on conditions, those shapes and 

patterns in the infrared image can 

appear significantly different than they 

would with normal vision. Considering 

these factors, the EFVS image needs to 

be evaluated to determine that the pilot 

can interpret it accurately. 

The image may improve the pilot’s 

ability to detect and identify items of 

interest. However, the EFVS needs to be 

evaluated to determine that the imagery 

allows the pilot to perform the normal 

duties of the flight crew and adequately 

see outside the window through and 

beyond the EFVS image, consistent with 

the safety intent of § 25.773(a)(2). 

Compared to a HUD displaying the 

EFVS image and symbology, a HUD that 

only displays stroke-written symbols is 

easier to see through. Stroke symbology 

illuminates a small fraction of the total 

display area of the HUD, leaving much 

of that area free of reflected light that 

could interfere with the pilot’s view out 

the window through and beyond the 

display. However, unlike stroke 

symbology, the video image illuminates 

most of the total display area of the 

HUD (approximately 30 degrees 

horizontally and 25 degrees vertically), 

which is a significant fraction of the 

pilot compartment view. The pilot 

cannot see around the larger illuminated 

portions of the video image, but must 

see the outside scene through it. 

Unlike the pilot’s external view, the 

EFVS image is a monochrome, twodimensional display. Many, but not all, 

of the depth cues found in the natural 

view are also found in the image. The 

quality of the EFVS image and the level 

of EFVS infrared sensor performance 

could depend significantly on 

conditions of the atmospheric and 

external light sources. The pilot needs 

adequate control of sensor gain and 

image brightness, which can 

significantly affect image quality and 

transparency (i.e., the ability to see the 

outside view through and beyond the 

image). Certain system characteristics 

could create distracting and confusing 

display artifacts. Finally, because this is 

a sensor-based system intended to 

provide a conformal perspective 

corresponding with the outside scene, 

the system must be able to ensure 

accurate alignment. 

Hence, safety standards are required 

for each of the following factors: 

• An acceptable degree of image 

transparency; 

• Image alignment; 

• Lack of significant distortion; and 

• The potential for pilot confusion or 

misleading information. 

Section 25.773—Pilot Compartment 

View, specifies that ‘‘Each pilot 

compartment must be free of glare and 

reflection that could interfere with the 

normal duties of the minimum flight 

crew * * *.’’ In issuing § 25.773, the 

FAA did not anticipate the development 

of EFVSs and does not consider § 25.773 

to be adequate to address the specific 

issues related to such a system. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

special conditions are needed to address 

the specific issues particular to the 

installation and use of an EFVS. 

Discussion 

The EFVS is intended to function by 

presenting an enhanced view during the 

approach. This enhanced view would 

help the pilot see and recognize external 

visual references, as required by 

§ 91.175(l), and to visually monitor the 

integrity of the approach, as described 

in FAA Order 6750.24D (‘‘Instrument 

Landing System and Ancillary 

Electronic Component Configuration 

and Performance Requirements,’’ dated 

March 1, 2000). 

Based on this approved functionality, 

users would seek to obtain operational 

approval to conduct approaches— 

including approaches to Type I 

runways—in visibility conditions much 

lower than those for conventional 

Category I. 

The purpose of these special 

conditions is to ensure that the EFVS to 

be installed performs the following 

functions: 

• Present an enhanced view that aids 

the pilot during the approach. 

• Provide enhanced flight visibility to 

the pilot that is no less than the 

visibility prescribed in the standard, 

instrument-approach procedure. 

• Display an image that the pilot can 

use to detect and identify the ‘‘visual 

references for the intended runway’’ 

required by § 91.175(l)(3), to continue 

the approach with vertical guidance to 

100-feet height above the touchdownzone elevation. 

Depending on the atmospheric 

conditions and the particular visual 

references that happen to be distinctly 

visible and detectable in the EFVS 

image, these functions would support 

its use by the pilot to visually monitor 

the integrity of the instrument-approach 

path. 

Compliance with these special 

conditions does not affect the 

applicability of any of the requirements 

of the operating regulations (i.e., 14 CFR 

parts 91, 121, and 135). Furthermore, 

use of the EFVS does not change the 

approach minima prescribed in the 

standard instrument approach 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
55446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure being used; published 

minima still apply. 

The FAA certification of this EFVS is 

limited as follows: 

• The infrared-based EFVS image will 

not be certified as a means to satisfy the 

requirements for descent below 100 feet 

height above touchdown (HAT). 

• The EFVS may be used as a 

supplemental device to enhance the 

pilot’s situational awareness during any 

phase of flight or operation in which its 

safe use has been established. 

An EFVS image may provide an 

enhanced image of the scene that may 

compensate for any reduction in the 

clear outside view of the visual field 

framed by the HUD combiner. The pilot 

must be able to use this combination of 

information displayed in the image and 

the natural view of the outside scene, 

seen through the image, as safely and 

effectively as the pilot would use a 

§ 25.773-compliant pilot-compartment 

view without an EVS image. This is the 

fundamental objective of the special 

conditions. 

The FAA also applies additional 

certification criteria, not as special 

conditions, for compliance with related 

regulatory requirements, such as 

§ 25.1301 and § 25.1309. These 

additional criteria address certain image 

characteristics, installation, 

demonstration, and system safety. 

Image-characteristic criteria include 

the following: 

• Resolution, 

• Luminance, 

• Luminance uniformity, 

• Low level luminance, 

• Contrast variation, 

• Display quality, 

• Display dynamics (e.g., jitter, 

flicker, update rate, and lag), and 

• Gain and brightness controls. 

Installation criteria address visibility 

and access to EFVS controls and 

integration of EFVS in the cockpit. 

The EFVS demonstration criteria 

address the flight and environmental 

conditions that need to be covered. 

The FAA also intends to apply 

certification criteria relevant to highintensity radiated fields (HIRF) and 

lightning protection. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2B16 (CL– 

605) airplane. Should Rockwell Collins 

Aerospace & Electronics, Inc., apply at 

a later date for a supplemental type 

certificate to modify any other model 

included on the same type certificate, to 

incorporate the same novel or unusual 

design feature, these special conditions 

would apply to that model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on the 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2B16 (CL– 

605) airplane, as modified by Rockwell 

Collins Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. It 

is not a rule of general applicability and 

affects only the applicant that applied to 

the FAA for approval of these features 

on the airplane. 

The substance of these special 

conditions has been subjected to the 

notice and comment period in several 

prior instances and has been derived 

without substantive change from those 

previously issued. It is unlikely that 

prior public comment would result in a 

significant change from the substance 

contained herein. Therefore, because a 

delay would significantly affect the 

certification of the airplane, which is 

imminent, the FAA has determined that 

prior public notice and comment are 

unnecessary and impracticable, and 

good cause exists for adopting these 

special conditions upon issuance. The 

FAA is requesting comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment described above. 

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, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the following special conditions are 

issued as part of the amended type 

certification basis for Bombardier Model 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–605) airplanes, 

modified by Rockwell Collins 

Aerospace & Electronics, Inc.: 

1. The EFVS imagery on the HUD 

must not degrade the safety of flight or 

interfere with the effective use of 

outside visual references for required 

pilot tasks during any phase of flight in 

which it is to be used. 

2. To avoid unacceptable interference 

with the safe and effective use of the 

pilot compartment view, the EFVS 

device must meet the following 

requirements: 

a. The EFVS design must minimize 

unacceptable display characteristics or 

artifacts (e.g., noise, ‘‘burlap’’ overlay, 

running water droplets) 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 EFVS display brightness 

must be sufficiently effective in 

dynamically changing background 

(ambient) lighting conditions to prevent 

full or partial blooming of the display 

that would distract the pilot, impair the 

pilot’s ability to detect and identify 

visual references, mask flight hazards, 

or 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 timecritical, high-workload phase of flight 

(e.g., low-visibility instrument 

approach). 

c. A readily accessible control must be 

provided that permits the pilot to 

immediately deactivate and reactivate 

EFVS image display on demand. 

d. The EFVS 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 EFVS 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 EFVS 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 they are no longer displayed 

conformally, such as with ‘‘ghosting.’’ 

f. A HUD system that displays EFVS 

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 not be 

degraded by the display of the EFVS 

image. These tasks include the 

following: 

a. Detection, accurate identification, 

and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid 

traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other 

hazards of flight. 

b. Accurate identification and 

utilization of visual references required 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55447 

for every task relevant to the phase of 

flight. 

4. Compliance with these special 

conditions will enable the EFVS to be 

used during instrument approaches in 

accordance with 14 CFR 91.175(l) such 

that it may be found acceptable for the 

following intended functions: 

a. Presenting an image that would aid 

the pilot during a straight-in instrument 

approach. 

b. Enabling the pilot to determine the 

‘‘enhanced flight visibility,’’ as required 

by § 91.175(l)(2), for descent and 

operation below MDA and DH. 

c. Enabling the pilot to use the EFVS 

imagery to detect and identify the 

‘‘visual references for the intended 

runway,’’ required by § 91.175(l)(3), to 

continue the approach with vertical 

guidance to 100-feet height above 

touchdown-zone elevation. 

5. Use of EFVS for instrumentapproach operations must be in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 91.175(l) and (m). Appropriate 

limitations must be stated in the 

Operating Limitations section of the 

Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the 

use of the EFVS for functions that have 

not been found to be acceptable. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

9, 2009. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25493 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0952; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–SW–04–AD; Amendment 39– 

16055; AD 2009–22–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

France (ECF) Model EC 155B and 

EC155B1 Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

specified ECF model helicopters. This 

AD results from a mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) AD 

issued by the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA), which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Community. The MCAI AD 

states that freezing of the route display 

on the navigation display (ND) in the 

Sector mode occurs for flight plans that 

include procedures in the terminal zone 

(departure or arrival). The MCAI AD 

prohibits the use of the UNS–1D 

navigation system (also known as the 

Flight Management System (FMS)) for 

Standard Instrument Departure (SID), 

Standard Instrument Terminal Arrival 

Route (STAR), and instrument approach 

procedures. The actions are intended to 

prevent the flight crew from relying on 

a frozen route ND, unanticipated 

increases in flight crew workload, pilot 

confusion in the terminal airspace 

environment, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

November 12, 2009. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by December 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this AD from American 

Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75053–4005, 

telephone 800–232–0323, fax (972) 641– 

3710 or at http://www.eurocopter.com. 

Examining the Docket: You may 

examine the AD docket on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or in 

person at the Docket Operations office 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is 

stated in the ADDRESSES section of this 

AD. Comments will be available in the 

AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DOT/FAA Southwest Region, George 

Schwab, ASW–111, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety 

Management Group, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, 

telephone (817) 222–5114, fax (817) 

222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No. 

2009–0035–E, dated February 18, 2009, 

to correct an unsafe condition for the 

Model EC 155 B and B1 helicopters. 

The route display on the ND in the 

Sector mode is no longer refreshed if the 

flight plan, processed and transmitted 

by the UNS–1D FMS, contains a 

procedure that includes a holding 

pattern or a Distance Measurement 

Equipment arc. Only the route display 

on the ND in the Sector mode is 

affected. The navigation and guidance 

parameter displays on the ND, the flight 

plan display on the UNS–1D, and the 

coupling to the autopilot are not 

affected. Freezing of the route display 

only occurs for flight plans that include 

procedures in the terminal zone 

(departure and arrival). If not corrected, 

unanticipated freezing of the route 

display during operations under IFR 

conditions, particularly during 

instrument meteorological conditions, 

would result in a significant increase in 

flight crew workload, causing pilot 

confusion in the more crowded terminal 

airspace environment and affecting the 

safety of the helicopter and its 

occupants. For those reasons, the MCAI 

AD prohibits the use of the UNS–1D 

navigation system for SID and STAR 

procedures. The Rotorcraft Flight 

Manual (RFM) currently prohibits the 

use of the GPS for approach procedures. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI AD and any 

related service information in the AD 

docket. 

Related Service Information 

Eurocopter has issued an Emergency 

Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A008, 

dated February 17, 2009. The service 

information specifies prohibiting the 

use of the UNS–1D navigation system 

for SID and STAR and for instrument 

approach procedures. The actions 

described in the MCAI AD are intended 

to correct the same unsafe condition as 

that identified in the service 

information. 

FAA’s Evaluation and Unsafe Condition 

Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of France and 

are approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with France, EASA, their 

technical agent, has notified us of the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES