Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems, 90126-90177 [2016-28714]

Download as PDF 90126 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 23, 25, 27, 29, 61, 91, 121, 125, and 135 [Docket No.: FAA–2013–0485; Amdt. Nos. 1–70, 23–63, 25–144, 27–48, 29–56, 61–139, 91–345, 121–376, 125–66, and 135–135] RIN 2120–AJ94 Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Prior to this final rule, persons could only use an Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) in lieu of natural vision to descend below the decision altitude, decision height, or minimum descent altitude (DA/DH or MDA) down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) using certain straight-in landing instrument approach procedures (IAPs). This final rule permits operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to continue descending from 100 feet above the TDZE to the runway and to land on certain straight-in IAPs under instrument flight rules (IFR). This final rule also revises and relocates the regulations that permit operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend to 100 feet above the TDZE using certain straight-in IAPs. Additionally, this final rule addresses provisions that permit operators who conduct EFVS operations under parts 121, 125, or 135 to use EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR, and revises the regulations for those operators to initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended landing. This final rule establishes pilot training and recent flight experience requirements for operators who use EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below the DA/ DH or MDA. EFVS-equipped aircraft conducting operations to touchdown and rollout are required to meet additional airworthiness requirements. This final rule also revises pilot compartment view certification requirements for vision systems using a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view. The final rule takes advantage of advanced vision capabilities, thereby achieving mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goals of increasing access, efficiency, and throughput at many airports when low visibility is the limiting factor. Additionally, it enables EFVS operations in reduced visibilities on a greater number of approach procedure types while maintaining an equivalent level of safety. DATES: The final rule is effective March 13, 2017, except for the amendments to §§ 61.66 (amendatory instruction no. 15), 91.175 (amendatory instruction no. 18), 91.1039 (amendatory instruction no. 23), 121.651 (amendatory instruction no. 27), 125.325 (amendatory instruction no. 33), 125.381 (amendatory instruction no. 35), and 135.225 (amendatory instruction no. 38), which are effective March 13, 2018. 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 action, contact Terry King, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS–400, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–8790; email Terry.King@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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 49 U.S.C. 40103, which vests the Administrator with broad authority to prescribe regulations to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document AC—Advisory circular ADS–B—Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast AFM—Airplane flight manual AFMS—Airplane flight manual supplement PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 AIM—Aeronautical Information Manual ALPA—Airline Pilots Association APV—Approach (procedure) with vertical guidance ASR—Airport surveillance radar ATC—Air Traffic Control AWO—All weather operations AWOH ARC—All Weather Operations Harmonization Aviation Rulemaking Committee CAA—Civil aviation authority CVS—Combined Vision System DA—Decision altitude DH—Decision height EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency EFVS—Enhanced Flight Vision System EVS—Enhanced Vision System FAA—Federal Aviation Administration FAF—Final approach fix FFS—Full flight simulator FPARC—Flight path angle reference cue FPV—Flight path vector FSB—Flight Standardization Board GAMA—General Aviation Manufacturers Association GPS—Global positioning system HAI—Helicopter Association International HGS—Head Up Guidance System HMD—Head mounted display HUD—Head up display IAP—Instrument approach procedure ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO HESC—International Civil Aviation Organization HUD, EVS, SVS, and CVS Subgroup IFR—Instrument flight rules ILS—Instrument landing system IMC—Instrument meteorological conditions IR—Infrared LED—Light emitting diode LIDAR—Laser imaging detection and ranging LOA—Letter of authorization LODA—Letter of deviation authority LPV—Localizer performance with vertical guidance MASPS—Minimum aviation system performance standards MDA—Minimum descent altitude MSpec—Management specifications NextGen—Next Generation Air Transportation System NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NVG—Night vision goggle OEM—Original equipment manufacturer OpSpec—Operations specifications PAR—Precision approach radar PCG—Pilot/Controller Glossary PIC—Pilot in Command RNAV—Area navigation RNP—Required navigation performance RVR—Runway visual range SNPRM—Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TERPS—Terminal instrument procedures TDZE—Touchdown Zone Elevation VFR—Visual flight rules VNAV—Vertical navigation WAAS—Wide area augmentation system Table of Contents I. Overview of Final Rule II. Background A. Statement of the Problem B. Related Actions C. Summary of the NPRM E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations D. General Overview of Comments III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public Comments A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and Add a Definition for EFVS Operation (§ 1.1) B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in Part 91 in a New Section (§ 91.176) C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements for EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout (§ 91.176(a)) 1. Equipment Requirements a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors b. Head Up Presentation Requirement for EFVS Operations c. EFVS Terminology d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for Foreign-Registered Aircraft e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue (FPARC) g. Requirement to Display Height Above Ground Level h. Requirement to Display Flare Prompt or Flare Guidance i. Pilot Monitoring Display j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to Rotorcraft Operations k. Requirement to Obtain a Certificate of Waiver When Conducting Certain EFVS Operations 2. Operating Requirements a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS Operations b. Touchdown Zone c. Definition of ‘‘EFVS Operation’’ and Underlying Operational Concepts d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and EFVS Operations e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 Operators To Conduct EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout f. International EFVS Operations g. EFVS Authorizations h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations i. Combined Vision Systems j. Use of the Term ‘‘EFVS’’ in Rule Language k. Approach Plates and EFVS Operations l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS Operating Requirements n. Opposing Comments on the FAA’s Proposal 3. Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements a. Visual References Below 100 Feet Above the TDZE During EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout b. Enhanced Flight Visibility Requirement During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE c. Visual References for Rollout d. Controlling Runway Visual Range (RVR) Values e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative Visual Aids f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility Requirements of §§ 91.155 and 91.157 During Rotorcraft Operations D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE (§ 91.176(b)) 1. Methods for Conducting Approaches During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, and Refresher Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66) 1. Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(a), (b) and (c)) a. Separate Training for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE and EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an EFVS in Flight Operations d. Revisions To Clarify Training Requirements in § 61.66(a), (b) and (c) 2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS Refresher Training for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(d) and (e)) 3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience 4. Persons Authorized to Conduct EFVS Refresher Training 5. Revisions to § 61.57 6. Military Pilots and Former Military Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces (§ 61.66(f)) 7. Use of Full Flight Simulators (§ 61.66(g)) 8. Exceptions (§ 61.66(h)) a. Manipulating the Controls (§ 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) b. Exception to Ground and Flight Training (§ 61.66(h)(2)) c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience Requirements (§ 61.66(h)(3)) d. Grandfather Clause (§ 61.66(h)(4)) F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a Flight Using EFVS-Equipped Aircraft When the Reported or Forecast Visibility at the Destination Airport is Below Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.613, 125.361, 135.219) and Initiating or Continuing an Approach Using EFVSEquipped Aircraft When the Destination Airport Visibility is Below Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, 135.225) G. Revisions to Category II and III General Operating Rules to Permit the Use of an EFVS (§ 91.189) H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and Airworthiness Standards for Vision Systems With Transparent Displays Located in the Pilot’s Outside Field of View (§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773) 1. Vision Systems and Display Methods Addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 2. Pilot’s Outside View—Terminology and Compensation for Interference 3. Undistorted View Requirements 4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and Head Mounted Display (HMD) Considerations 5. Requirement To Provide a Means of Immediate Deactivation and Reactivation of Vision System Imagery 6. Vision Systems and Requirements Applicable to Duties and Maneuvers 7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS Installations 8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation and Bird Strike Requirements I. Related and Conforming Amendments (§§ 91.175, 91.905, and 135.225) J. Implementation PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90127 K. Miscellaneous Issues 1. Minimum Crew Requirements 2. Failure Modes 3. EFVS Equipment and Operational Considerations 4. Applicability of Previously Collected Data or Data Submitted on the Basis of Similarity 5. Public Aircraft Operations 6. Qualification Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations in the United States 7. Economic Comments IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination C. International Trade Impact Assessment D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. International Compatibility and Cooperation G. Environmental Analysis V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132. Federalism B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use VI. How to Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents B. Comments Submitted to the Docket C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act I. Overview of Final Rule This final rule modifies the requirements for EFVS operations. The FAA is revising the definition of an EFVS in § 1.1 to describe the components of an EFVS and to specify that an EFVS is an ‘‘installed aircraft system’’ rather than an ‘‘installed airborne system’’ because some EFVS operations may be conducted on the surface as well as airborne. The FAA is also adding a new term, ‘‘EFVS operation,’’ to § 1.1. The FAA is creating new § 91.176, which contains the operating rules for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA is relocating to § 91.176(b) the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, which were previously located in § 91.175(l) and (m), and is revising and restructuring these regulations. Prior to this final rule, persons could only use EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE using certain straight-in landing IAPs. Section 91.176(a) now expands the existing operational capability by permitting persons to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to continue descending below 100 feet above the TDZE to landing and rollout. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 91.176 are organized into three main areas—equipment requirements, operating requirements, and visibility and visual reference requirements. The equipment, E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90128 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations operating, and visibility requirements in paragraph (a) for conducting an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout are different from the requirements in paragraph (b) for conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE. In addition, persons are permitted to use two new visual references for descent below 100 feet above the TDZE for EFVS operations conducted under both § 91.176(a) and (b). The FAA is also amending the operating rules for Category II and Category III operations in § 91.189 to permit the use of EFVS in lieu of natural vision during the performance of those operations. This final rule also establishes training and recent flight experience requirements for persons conducting EFVS operations.1 The ground and flight training requirements in § 61.66(a), (b) and (c) apply to pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE as well as to pilots conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. A pilot must comply with the training provisions of part 61 in addition to the training provisions of the part under which the operation is conducted, which may require additional ground and flight training appropriate to the particular assignment of the pilot flightcrew member. Recent flight experience and refresher training requirements for persons conducting EFVS operations are located in § 61.66(d) and (e). Additionally, § 61.66(f) contains the requirements applicable to military and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces who wish to conduct EFVS operations under § 91.176. The FAA is revising §§ 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225 to permit operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft to initiate or continue an approach when the destination airport visibility is below authorized minimums. The FAA is also revising § 91.1039(e) to permit part 91 subpart K operators to conduct takeoff operations using EFVS when the visibility is less than 600 feet in accordance with the certificate holders’ Management Specifications (MSpec) for EFVS operations, and to clarify that an EFVS operation is permitted when the landing weather minimums are less than those prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over the airport. Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) through (xi) requires operators conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout under part 91, 121, 125 (including part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority 1 As further discussed in section III.E of this preamble, the FAA has reorganized the training, recent flight experience, and proficiency requirements that were proposed in §§ 61.31 and 61.57 and consolidated them in new § 61.66. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 (LODA) holders), 129, or 135 to obtain FAA authorization to conduct those operations. Section 91.176(b)(2)(vii) through (ix) requires operators conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under part 91 subpart K, 121, 125 (including part 125 LODA holders), or 135 to obtain FAA authorization to conduct those operations. Under § 91.176(b)(2), part 91 operators, other than those operating under part 91 subpart K, are not required to obtain FAA authorization to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA now revises the pilot compartment view rules contained in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 to establish airworthiness standards for vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head up display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. This final rule eliminates the current need to issue special conditions for vision system video on a head up display. The FAA notes that its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ‘‘Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes,’’ 81 FR 13452 (Mar. 14, 2016), contains proposals that significantly restructure part 23. Because the part 23 NPRM is pending, references to part 23 in this final rule refer to existing part 23, and revisions to the pilot compartment view rules contained in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 include the general requirements that were previously contained in special conditions. Revising § 23.773 establishes a requirement that could later be used as a means of compliance if the proposed part 23 rule becomes final. This final rule also makes related and conforming amendments to §§ 91.175, 91.905 and 135.225. The FAA is updating regulatory cross references and terms in § 91.175 to coincide with this final rule and with another FAA final rule, which was published after the NPRM.2 The FAA is amending § 91.905 to include § 91.176 as a regulation subject to waiver. Additionally, the FAA is revising § 135.225 to correct a drafting error that arose from another final rule, ‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision Systems,’’ 69 FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004), and later identified in an FAA legal interpretation dated September 20, 2013.3 2 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013). 3 Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip Kelsey from Mark W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (September 20, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 II. Background A. Statement of the Problem The FAA created regulations in 2004, § 91.175(l) and (m), which permitted persons to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend an aircraft below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE. These regulations, however, did not provide operators with the ability to fully utilize the benefits of EFVS technology. The FAA believes it can better leverage EFVS capabilities by issuing performance-based requirements for current and future enhanced flight vision systems, which should increase access, efficiency, and throughput at many airports when low visibility is a factor. Under the 2004 EFVS regulations, the pilot of an aircraft operating under part 121, 125, or 135 could not begin an approach or continue an approach past the final approach fix (FAF), or, where a FAF was not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure, when the weather at the destination airport was reported to be below authorized minimums. These restrictions prevented persons conducting operations under parts 121, 125, or 135 from using EFVS for maximum operational benefit. Under § 91.175(l), persons could use the enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS for operational benefit only in that portion of the visual segment of an approach that extended from DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE. While that provided significant benefits, the requirement to transition to natural vision at 100 feet above the TDZE prevented operators from realizing the benefits of permitting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Furthermore, the 2004 EFVS regulations did not specify any training, recent flight experience, or proficiency requirements in part 61 for persons conducting EFVS operations. Since the 2004 final rule was enacted, the number of EFVS operations has significantly increased. The FAA believes this final rule will further increase the number of operators conducting EFVS operations to lower altitudes in low visibility conditions. Therefore, training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements in part 61 are needed to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained. Additionally, the 2004 EFVS regulations did not permit persons to use EFVS for operational benefit during Category II and Category III operations. The FAA believes an EFVS can provide operational and safety benefits during Category II and Category III operations, E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations especially as more advanced imaging sensor capabilities are developed, which function more effectively in lower visibility conditions. Finally, prior to this final rule, there were no airworthiness standards that specifically addressed vision systems, such as EFVS. Accordingly, the FAA used special conditions to certificate aircraft with vision systems, which imposed significant delays on the certification process. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 B. Related Actions The FAA revised Advisory Circular (AC) 90–106, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, and AC 20–167, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment to incorporate the provisions of this final rule. AC 90– 106A contains guidance for the operational approval of EFVS, and AC 20–167A specifies a means of compliance that may be used to obtain airworthiness approval for EFVS. C. Summary of the NPRM On June 11, 2013, the FAA published an NPRM titled ‘‘Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems,’’ 78 FR 34935. The comment period was initially scheduled to close on September 9, 2013. Dassault Aviation submitted a request to extend the NPRM comment period to October 15, 2013, stating that it needed additional time to evaluate and prepare comments for the NPRM, draft AC 90–106A, and draft AC 20–167A, all of which are directly related. On September 6, 2013, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register extending the NPRM comment period to October 15, 2013, to coincide with the close of comment period for draft AC 90–106A and draft AC 20– 167A. ‘‘Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Extension of Comment Period,’’ 78 FR 54790. The regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the docket prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, to ensure that the public had the opportunity to provide comments specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in the docket, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register on August 20, 2015, reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only. ‘‘Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Reopening of Comment Period,’’ 80 FR 50587. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to— • More fully define the components of an EFVS and provide a definition of the term ‘‘EFVS operation’’ in § 1.1. • Establish airworthiness standards for vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773. • Require training and an endorsement for EFVS operations in § 61.31(l). • Require recent flight experience or a proficiency check for a person conducting an EFVS operation or acting as pilot in command (PIC) during an EFVS operation in § 61.57(i). • Re-designate § 91.175(l) and (m) as § 91.176(b). The FAA proposed to place all EFVS regulations contained in part 91, except those pertaining to Category II and Category III operations, in a single new section for organizational and regulatory clarity. • Permit EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to continue descending below 100 feet above the touchdown zone provided certain equipment, operating, visibility, and visual reference requirements were met. • Permit an EFVS to be used to identify the visual references required to continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH on Category II and Category III approaches conducted under § 91.189 that provide and require the use of a DA/DH. • Add § 91.176 to the list of rules subject to waiver in § 91.905. • Amend §§ 121.613 and 121.615 to permit an EFVS-equipped aircraft to be dispatched or released when the visibility was forecast or reported to be below authorized minimums for a destination airport. • Permit a pilot conducting an EFVS operation in accordance with § 121.651 to continue an approach past the FAF, or begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure, when the weather was reported to be below authorized visibility minimums. Proposed § 121.651 also would have permitted EFVS-equipped part 121 operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with § 91.176 and their operations specifications issued for EFVS operations. • Permit flight release under §§ 125.361 and 125.363 for EFVSequipped aircraft when weather reports or forecasts indicated that arrival weather conditions at the destination PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90129 airport would be below authorized minimums. • Permit the pilot of an EFVSequipped aircraft to execute an instrument approach procedure when the weather is reported below authorized visibility minimums under §§ 125.325 and 125.381. Proposed § 125.381 also would have permitted EFVS-equipped part 125 operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with § 91.176 and their operations specifications. • Permit flights in EFVS-equipped aircraft to be initiated under § 135.219 when weather reports or forecasts indicated that arrival weather conditions at the destination airport would be below authorized minimums. • Permit the pilot of an EFVSequipped aircraft to initiate an instrument approach procedure under § 135.225 when the reported visibility was below the authorized visibility minimums for the approach. Proposed § 135.225 also would have permitted EFVS-equipped part 135 operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with § 91.176 and their operations specifications issued for EFVS operations. • Make additional related and conforming amendments. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed performance-based requirements not limited to a specific sensor technology. The FAA intended to accommodate future developments in real-time sensor technologies and maximize the benefits of advanced flight deck systems. The final rule is consistent with the agency’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goals of increasing access and throughput during low visibility operations. The operating requirements of the proposal only addressed enhanced flight vision systems that utilize a real-time image of the external scene topography. The proposed operating requirements did not address synthetic vision, which uses a computer-generated image of the external scene topography from the perspective of the flight deck, derived from aircraft attitude, a high precision navigation solution, and a database of terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural features. The airworthiness standards proposed in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773, however, addressed synthetic vision systems (SVS) with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view because the airworthiness standards apply to more than enhanced flight vision systems; they apply to all transparent display surfaces located in the pilot’s outside field of view. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90130 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Finally, the NPRM did not address the use of EFVS for takeoff because the FAA can authorize these operations through existing processes. Section 91.175(f) already provides a means for persons conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 to obtain authorization for lower than standard takeoff minimums, which could include the use of EFVS. Additionally, the regulations do not prescribe civil airport takeoff minimums for part 91 operators (other than part 91subpart K operators) as discussed in section III.C.2.h of this preamble. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 D. General Overview of Comments The FAA received comments from 34 commenters. The commenters consisted of 16 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), five industry associations, several operators, an aircraft management service, an aerospace consulting company, a standards organization, and several individuals. All but one commenter generally supported the proposed changes. Three commenters supported the proposal with no changes, and the remaining 30 commenters generally supported the proposal with 171 comments containing questions, concerns, and suggested changes. A number of commenters stated that they support the FAA’s intent to better leverage EFVS capabilities by providing a performance-based regulation for existing and evolving EFVS technology. One commenter stated that future improvements in EFVS sensor technologies may enable additional performance-based operations under the FAA’s proposal, and others commented that they believe EFVS technology has tremendous potential for increasing safety and enhancing airspace utilization within the NAS while creating economic benefits to the public. Several industry associations said they strongly support the FAA creating and supporting a flexible regulatory structure that encourages innovation and improves operational efficiencies. Several OEMs specifically supported the FAA’s proposal to eliminate the need to issue special conditions by revising the pilot compartment view certification requirements in the airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. Specific changes recommended by the commenters as well as the concerns expressed by one individual who opposed the FAA’s proposal are discussed in detail in ‘‘Section III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public Comments.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public Comments A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and Add a Definition for EFVS Operation (§ 1.1) Section 1.1 defines enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) to mean ‘‘an installed aircraft system which uses an electronic means to provide a display of the forward external scene topography (the natural or manmade features of a place or region especially in a way to show their relative positions and elevation) through the use of imaging sensors, such as forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. An EFVS includes the display element, sensors, computers and power supplies, indications, and controls.’’ This definition differs from what was proposed in the NPRM, because the FAA is not including the equipment requirements in the definition, which proposed ‘‘The EFVS sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information and flight symbology are displayed on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that they are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path.’’ The proposed definition would have inappropriately embedded requirements. The definition of EFVS also differs from what was proposed in the NPRM because the FAA is not using the word ‘‘applicable’’ to describe the natural or manmade features that an EFVS may display. Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided that the word ‘‘applicable’’ could generate confusion because an EFVS cannot differentiate between applicable and non-applicable items. An EFVS simply senses and displays items. The FAA is, however, adopting the proposed relocation to § 1.1 of the descriptive material from § 91.175(m)(3). Garmin International suggested that the FAA revise the definition of EFVS by replacing ‘‘EFVS sensor imagery’’ with ‘‘EFVS image’’ or ‘‘EFVS sensor imagery and aircraft flight symbology.’’ In other words, Garmin was concerned that the term ‘‘sensor imagery,’’ as used in the definition, might be misinterpreted to mean only the image from the imaging sensor without encompassing the remaining EFVS elements. Garmin also believed its suggested revision would make the proposed definition in § 1.1 more consistent with proposed §§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B), 91.176(a)(1)(i)(E), and 91.176(a)(1)(ii). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The FAA is not adopting the proposed equipment requirements in the definition of EFVS, because § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) already contains these requirements.4 This decision is not intended to be a substantive change as the FAA is relying on the equipment requirements in § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) to replace the requirements it had proposed in the definition of EFVS. Definitions only describe what something is, not what it must do. Accordingly, definitions should not contain substantive regulatory provisions, such as regulatory requirements. If the FAA were to adopt requirements in the definition of EFVS, the FAA would not be able to grant an exemption from those requirements in the future because the FAA’s regulations describe an exemption as a request for relief from the requirements of a regulation.5 Nor would the FAA be able to grant a waiver from those requirements, if they were in the definition, because § 91.903 permits the FAA to grant a waiver from any rule listed in § 91.905 and a definition is not a rule. Therefore, § 1.1 defines the EFVS to which § 91.176 applies and § 91.176 contains the regulatory requirements. This change obviates addressing Garmin’s concern because the definition no longer contains the terminology Garmin sought to revise. However, as a result of Garmin’s comment, the FAA discovered that § 91.176(a) and (b), as proposed, did not contain specific references to ‘‘aircraft flight information,’’ as had been proposed in the definition of EFVS in § 1.1. Accordingly, the FAA is revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 91.176 to include ‘‘aircraft flight information’’ where appropriate. Section 1.1 defines an ‘‘EFVS operation’’ as an operation in which visibility conditions require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct the rollout. This definition differs slightly from the NPRM, where the FAA proposed to define ‘‘EFVS operation’’ as an operation in which an EFVS is required to be used to perform such tasks. This change clarifies that not all operations in which a pilot uses an EFVS constitute an EFVS operation under the definition. Rather, an EFVS 4 Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires an EFVS to present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that they are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path. 5 14 CFR 11.15 E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 operation is an operation that a pilot would not be permitted to perform without the use of an EFVS. For example, a person may not descend below the DA/DH using natural vision if the flight visibility using natural vision is less than what is required by the instrument approach procedure being flown. That person may, however, use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below the DA/DH if the enhanced flight visibility is not less than what is required by the instrument approach procedure. Boeing commented that the FAA stated in the preamble that while an EFVS can provide situation awareness in any phase of flight, such use would not constitute an EFVS operation unless an EFVS was required in lieu of natural vision to perform any visual task associated with approach, landing, and rollout. Boeing recommended that the FAA consider not just approach, landing, and rollout as part of an EFVS operation but approach, landing, and/or rollout to clarify that EFVS might be used for one segment of the terminal operation, but not other segments. The FAA agrees but Boeing’s concern is addressed in the definition of ‘‘EFVS operation’’ in § 1.1. B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in Part 91 in a New Section (§ 91.176) The FAA created a new section, § 91.176, for the EFVS regulations to ensure organizational and regulatory clarity. As the FAA originally proposed in the NPRM, § 91.176(a) contains the requirements for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, and § 91.176(b) contains the requirements, which were previously located in § 91.175(l) and (m), for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Boeing recommended that the FAA move the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE from § 91.176(b) to § 91.176(a), and move the regulations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout from § 91.176(a) to § 91.176(b). Boeing believed this format would facilitate reading and understanding the changes, because the existing EFVS rules, which were previously located in § 91.175(l) and (m), would be placed first. The FAA disagrees with Boeing and is retaining the format as originally proposed. The FAA placed the new rules for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in § 91.176(a) because it believes that operators will eventually conduct the majority of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Placing these regulations in § 91.176(a) facilitates quick reference. The FAA placed the rules for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, which were previously VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 located in § 91.175(l) and (m), in § 91.176(b) because it expects operators will use these rules less frequently in the future. Furthermore, the regulations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout are more extensive than the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. By placing the more extensive rules in § 91.176(a), the FAA is able to cross reference the equipment requirements of § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A)–(a)(1)(i)(F) in § 91.176(b)(1)(ii), thereby eliminating significant redundancy. C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements for EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout (§ 91.176(a)) 1. Equipment Requirements a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A) requires, as originally proposed in the NPRM, that an EFVS have an electronic means to provide a display of the forward external scene topography, which consists of the applicable natural or manmade features of a place or region, especially in a way to show their relative positions and elevation, through the use of imaging sensors, such as forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. Airbus and Thales commented on the list of imaging sensors. Airbus suggested that the FAA use an ellipsis at the end of the list to emphasize that it is not exhaustive, and Thales proposed that the FAA add laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) to the list. The FAA finds that the use of the term ‘‘such as’’ after the reference to imaging sensors indicates the list of examples is non-exhaustive. However, based on the concerns raised by the commenters, the FAA has revised the definition to clarify that imaging sensors includes but is not limited to the list of examples in §§ 1.1 and 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A). b. Head Up Presentation Requirement for EFVS Operations As originally proposed, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires that an EFVS present the sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path.6 6 Section 91.175(m) previously contained this requirement. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90131 This requirement applies to both EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.7 Several commenters expressed concerns about the requirement to present sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on a head up display (HUD). Honeywell commented that the FAA is unnecessarily restricting the goals of increased access, efficiency, and throughput in low visibility conditions by this requirement. Honeywell agreed that there is value in requiring EFVS information to be displayed on a HUD for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout but believes EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE should allow for head down presentations.8 FedEx Express, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream), Honeywell, and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) commented that the FAA should not limit an equivalent display to a head up presentation. Instead, it should consider all vision systems containing the required sensor imagery and flight symbology that meet an acceptable level of performance and safety for the intended operation. One commenter suggested that an acceptable location for an EFVS display, or an equivalent display, was in the normal line-of-sight established at 15 degrees below the horizontal plane, +/¥15 degrees for the vertical field-of-view, or +40 degrees up and -20 degrees down as a maximum deviation. Commenters were also concerned that the head up presentation requirement might have limiting effects on future technology. Honeywell contended that the FAA’s HUD requirement for EFVS does not allow for new technologies and new ways of presenting information that could be developed in the future. It also believed that alternative means for displaying the sensor imagery and flight information have already been shown to satisfy the necessary performance criteria. Additionally, several commenters stated that the FAA is unnecessarily limiting future aircraft or 7 Section 91.176(b)(1)(ii) requires the EFVS to meet the requirements of § 91.176(a)(1)(i) with the exception of the flare prompt, flare guidance, and height above ground level requirements. 8 Honeywell asserted that § 91.176(a) and (b) describe two different operations that do not necessarily require the same equipment. Honeywell explained that operators may currently perform Category II ILS approaches down to 100 feet above the TDZE using head down primary displays. Honeywell’s comments are out of scope as the FAA did not propose to change the existing head-up display, or equivalent display, requirements. Furthermore, the FAA notes that EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and Category II ILS approaches down to 100 feet above the TDZE are two distinct operations. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90132 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations systems that may be capable of meeting performance-based criteria appropriate for EFVS operations, such as vision systems that use head down displays, high-speed aircraft that have reduced or limited front window designs, or unmanned aerial systems (UASs). GAMA recommended that the FAA create a performance-based framework rather than making EFVS dependent only on HUD technology. It believes this would not only permit different technology solutions but would allow manufacturers to design an EFVS that enables operations to different performance minima. The FAA is not adopting these recommendations because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to change the existing head-up display, or equivalent display, requirements under § 91.175(m).9 Rather, the FAA proposed to expand EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout using the existing operational construct in § 91.175(l) and (m). More specifically, the FAA proposed to apply all the equipment requirements of the EFVS regulations found in § 91.175(m), including the head-up presentation requirement, to EFVS operations conducted to touchdown and rollout. As a result, others have not had an opportunity to comment on the use of HDDs to conduct EFVS operations. While the FAA is not issuing an SNPRM at this time to propose the use of HDDs under § 91.176, the FAA notes that it may grant waivers to OEMs from the applicable sections of § 91.176 to enable OEMs to use HDDs during EFVS operations for the purpose of research and development. After the FAA has had sufficient time to gather information and analyze the safety of HDDs used to conduct EFVS operations in the national airspace system, the FAA may contemplate future rulemaking. c. EFVS Terminology A couple of commenters sought clarification and alignment of the EFVS terminology used in § 91.176. Under § 91.176(a)(1)(i), a U.S.registered aircraft must have an operable EFVS that meets the applicable mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 9 The FAA notes that commenters raised these issues in 2004. The FAA disagreed that it should permit the presentation of EFVS information on head down displays, and noted that EFVS information must be presented on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that the imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path. Please see the previous disposition of comments in ‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision Systems,’’ 69 FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 airworthiness requirements.10 The terminology in this requirement differs slightly from the NPRM, which would have required an operable EFVS that had an FAA type design approval certified for EFVS operations. Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA clarify the terms ‘‘approved EFVS,’’ ‘‘certified EFVS,’’ and ‘‘EFVS-equipped operator.’’ The FAA finds it unnecessary to clarify the terms ‘‘approved EFVS’’ and ‘‘EFVSequipped operator’’ because it did not specifically use these terms in the proposed regulations. Nor is the FAA using these terms in this final rule. The FAA also finds it unnecessary to clarify the term ‘‘certified EFVS’’ because it has deleted the word ‘‘certified’’ from proposed § 91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(i). Instead, the FAA is using the phrase ‘‘meets the applicable airworthiness requirements.’’ 11 d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for Foreign-Registered Aircraft Under § 91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), an aircraft must be equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. The requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i) differ from the NPRM based on a comment from Thales and the ICAO standards that were adopted after the NPRM was published. Additionally, the NPRM proposed § 91.176(b)(1)(i) as § 91.176(b)(1)(iii).12 Thales commented that an EFVSequipped foreign-registered aircraft that does not have an FAA type design approval, but has been certified by its own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to operate with an EFVS, should not have to demonstrate compliance to the FAA regulations. Thales stated that this requirement is not always feasible as a foreign CAA may not be able to correctly interpret the FAA regulations. In addition, it stated that this requirement is not consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards without citing the specific standards at issue.13 10 See AC No. 20–167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment (providing guidance for obtaining airworthiness approval for enhanced and synthetic vision systems in aircraft). 11 The disposition of Thales’ comment in the next section of the preamble explains why the FAA is using the phrase ‘‘meets the applicable airworthiness requirements.’’ 12 The FAA restructured the requirements in proposed § 91.176(b)(1)(i)–(iii) to be more consistent with § 91.176(a)(1)(i) for organizational clarity. 13 The FAA believes that Thales is referring to ICAO Annex 6, Part I, 6.23.2 and ICAO Annex 6, Part II, 2.4.15.2, which are discussed in the following paragraph. The FAA notes that ICAO PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Thales asserted that a foreign operator operating in the United States should only have to demonstrate that it has been authorized to operate the EFVS in accordance with the rules of its own CAA and that the FAA should recognize them as being compliant with FAA rules without requesting a specific compliance demonstration. The FAA agrees that it should not require an EFVS-equipped foreignregistered aircraft to have an EFVS that meets the FAA’s certification requirements if that EFVS has been certified by the foreign-registered aircraft’s own CAA in accordance with ICAO Annex 6. ICAO Annex 6 defines an enhanced vision system (EVS) as a ‘‘system to display electronic real-time images of the external scene achieved through the use of image sensors.’’ ICAO’s definition of EVS encompasses the FAA’s definition of EFVS. Accordingly, the ICAO Annex 6 standards on EVS apply to EFVS. Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 requires the State of the Operator, in approving the operational use of EVS, to ensure that the equipment meets the appropriate airworthiness certification requirements. Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2 requires the State of Registry, in approving the operational use of EVS, to ensure that the equipment meets the appropriate airworthiness certification requirements.14 Based on the FAA’s interpretation of these standards, if an EFVS-equipped foreign-registered aircraft has an EFVS that has been approved by the State of the Operator or the State of Registry to meet the CAA’s airworthiness certification requirements, the FAA cannot subsequently require that foreignregistered aircraft’s EFVS to meet U.S. certification requirements.15 Accordingly, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i) now require an aircraft to be equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. By using the phrase ‘‘meets the applicable airworthiness requirements,’’ the requirement applies to both U.S.-registered aircraft and foreign-registered aircraft. The U.S.registered aircraft must be equipped with an EFVS that has demonstrated adopted these standards after the NPRM was published on June 11, 2013. 14 ICAO adopted Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 and Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2 after the FAA issued the NPRM on June 11, 2013, 15 The FAA could have required this prior to the adoption of Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 and Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2, which explains why § 91.175(l)(7) previously required a foreignregistered aircraft to have an EFVS that complies with all of the EFVS requirements of 14 CFR and why the FAA proposed to retain the requirement in the NPRM. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements by issuance of a design approval through the type certification process (i.e., type certificate, amended type certificate, or supplemental type certificate).16 The foreign-registered aircraft must be equipped with an EFVS that has been approved by either the State of the Operator or the State of Registry to meet the appropriate airworthiness certification requirements in accordance with ICAO Annex 6. While a foreign-registered aircraft with an EFVS certified to a foreign airworthiness standard may operate within the United States without obtaining an FAA type design approval and without meeting the FAA’s certification requirements, that EFVSequipped foreign-registered aircraft must meet all of the requirements in § 91.176, including the equipment requirements, in order to be used in EFVS operations in the United States. This requirement is consistent with ICAO standards. Article 11 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation requires aircraft subject to its provisions and operating within the territory of a contracting State to comply with the applicable laws and regulations enacted by that State. ICAO Annex 6, Part I, Chapter 3 states that an operator shall meet and maintain the requirements of the States in which the operations are conducted and that an operator shall ensure that all pilots are familiar with the laws, regulations and procedures pertinent to the performance of their duties prescribed for the areas to be traversed.17 Similarly, ICAO Annex 6, Part II, Chapter 2.1 requires the PIC to comply with the laws, regulations, and procedures of those States in which operations are conducted and to be familiar with the laws, regulations, and procedures pertinent to the performance of his or her duties prescribed for the areas to be traversed.18 ICAO Annex 2, Standard 2.1.1 states that the rules of the air apply to aircraft of a contracting State to the extent they do not conflict with the rules published by the State having jurisdiction over the territory flown. The FAA also notes that certain foreign authorities have imposed requirements on operators of U.S.-registered aircraft in their airspace that are in addition to those established by the FAA to permit the conduct of EFVS operations. 16 Section 91.175(l)(7) previously required an EFVS to have an FAA type design approval. 17 ICAO Annex 6, Part I, Standards 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. 18 ICAO Annex 6, Part II, Standards 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) states, as originally proposed, that an EFVS must present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the pilot’s line of vision looking forward along the flight path. Boeing commented that a sensor will likely be hard-mounted to the airframe such that it is pointing straight along the longitudinal axis. It also noted that a HUD is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, and when someone flies a ‘‘crabbed’’ approach the flight path does not coincide with the longitudinal axis. Therefore, Boeing recommended that the FAA revise the rule from ‘‘looking forward along the flight path’’ to ‘‘looking forward along the aircraft longitudinal axis with adequate downward field of view to accommodate sight along the normal flight path vector.’’ Boeing noted that it is currently allowed to ‘‘ghost’’ symbology on the HUD that appears outside the HUD field of view, and that this capability should be preserved. The FAA is not adopting Boeing’s recommendation because it could unnecessarily restrict new technology that becomes available in the future. The EFVS requirements are performance-based, with means of compliance contained and updated as necessary in advisory circular documents. While the FAA recognizes that the aircraft’s flight path may not necessarily coincide with the aircraft’s longitudinal axis, the phrase ‘‘clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path’’ is intended to ensure that the EFVS provides a head up presentation and will accommodate Boeing’s recommendation. As proposed in the NPRM, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(C) requires an EFVS to present the displayed EFVS sensor imagery, attitude symbology, flight path vector (FPV), and flight path angle reference cue (FPARC), and other cues, which are referenced to the EFVS sensor imagery and external scene topography, so that they are aligned with, and scaled to, the external view. The term ‘‘referenced to’’ is used to reflect the FAA’s expectation that the vision system imagery and certain symbology use the same coordinate reference system as the pilot’s perspective outside view of the world. This is because the pilot uses the vision system imagery and symbology in coordination with, and PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90133 sometimes in very low visibility as a substitute for, the outside view of the world, including the terrain, features of the runway environment, and topology in general. Rockwell Collins asked whether it could conduct EFVS operations under the rule if the ‘‘Flight Path Symbol’’ became limited, and therefore nonconformal, to the EFVS image due to severe crosswinds or blowing snow conditions. The ability to perform an EFVS operation with a nonconformal FPV depends on a variety of factors, such as the particular EFVS and the type and severity of the limiting conditions. Because the EFVS is the primary means by which the pilot will maneuver the airplane to land, conditions that cause the FPV to become field-of-view limited, and therefore nonconformal, could make the display unacceptable for landing. An applicant should demonstrate EFVS operations on a variety of instrument approach procedures and in various wind conditions with pilot-in-the-loop simulation and a flight test, if possible, to establish the operational effects that limiting conditions might have on landing with an EFVS. The FAA may impose limitations in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or Airplane Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) for conditions where the required level of performance is not satisfactorily demonstrated. f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue (FPARC) Pursuant to § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D), the EFVS must display the FPARC with a pitch scale, and the FPARC must be selectable by the pilot to the desired descent angle for the approach and be suitable for monitoring the vertical flight path of the aircraft. The FAA made changes to this paragraph from what it originally proposed based on concerns raised by Boeing. Boeing asserted that the proposed requirement implied that the pitch scale was selectable, not the FPARC. Boeing commented that the FAA should revise § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D) to clarify that the FPARC must be selectable by the pilot to the desired descent angle for the approach being flown. Boeing also recommended that the provision indicate that the appropriate descent angle associated with the approach be selectable either by the pilot or automatically by the flight management computer. The FAA agrees and is revising § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D) accordingly. However, the FAA does not consider it necessary to specify whether the E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90134 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations descent angle selected is accomplished manually or automatically. The rule does not prohibit the automatic setting of the flight path angle; however, the pilot must have the ability to either manually select the flight path angle or to manually override the automatic setting. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 g. Requirement To Display Height Above Ground Level Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) specifies an equipment requirement for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, which requires an EFVS to display height above ground level, such as that provided by a radio altimeter or other device capable of providing equivalent performance. Dassault Aviation asked whether the FAA could provide an example of such a device. The FAA is not providing an example of an equivalent device, because it intends this rule to be a performance based requirement that is not limited to one device and that could accommodate future advances in technology. The FAA notes, however, that such a device must be capable of equivalently performing the function of a radio altimeter, which is to provide an accurate and reliable indication of aircraft height above the ground. h. Requirement To Display Flare Prompt or Flare Guidance For EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in aircraft other than rotorcraft, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires the EFVS to display flare prompt or flare guidance. This requirement reflects a slight change from what was proposed in the NPRM, where the FAA would have required the display of flare prompt or flare guidance for all aircraft, for achieving acceptable touchdown performance. Helicopter Association International (HAI) commented that rotorcraft certificated under parts 27 and 29 should be excluded from the requirement to display flare prompt or flare guidance, because parts 27 and 29 do not require flare prompt or flare guidance based on lower operating speed and maneuverability. The FAA agrees for the reasons the commenter provided. Accordingly, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) now excepts rotorcraft from the requirement. Boeing and Airbus also raised concerns about the definition of acceptable touchdown performance. Boeing stated that the FAA should define acceptable touchdown performance in guidance material, because it was unsure whether the term meant landing in the touchdown zone, compliance with landing performance VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 specified in AC 120–28D, equivalency to the AIII mode of a head up guidance system, or compliance with some other performance standard. Boeing also suggested that the FAA address quantitative standards in guidance material to ensure an applicant or designer can demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirement. Airbus provided a similar comment, suggesting that the FAA provide pass/fail criteria for acceptable touchdown performance during an EFVS operation using flare prompt or flare guidance. The FAA is not adopting a requirement ‘‘as appropriate, for acceptable touchdown performance’’ under § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) because the term ‘‘acceptable touchdown performance’’ is both vague, as identified by the commenters, and extraneous. ‘‘Acceptable touchdown performance’’ is not a regulatory term to date. Nor is it defined in the regulations. Furthermore, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(F) already requires an EFVS to display characteristics, dynamics, and cues that are suitable for manual control of the aircraft to touchdown in the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. Because paragraph (a)(1)(i)(F) requires the flare cue, i.e. flare prompt or flare guidance, to be suitable for manual control of the aircraft to touchdown in the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing, it is therefore unnecessary to require an EFVS to display flare prompt or flare guidance for achieving ‘‘acceptable touchdown performance’’ in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B). Each applicant for a type design approval must demonstrate touchdown performance for their particular EFVS implementation using either flare prompt or flare guidance. AC 20–167, paragraph 6–2(f)(4) specifically discusses landing performance demonstrations for EFVS operations conducted to touchdown and rollout and provides a means of demonstrating compliance for applicants or designers. Boeing further commented that the FAA should provide touchdown requirements that are strictly performance-based and asserted that the FAA should not require flare guidance or flare cue for a particular EFVS implementation if the pilot can achieve acceptable sink rate and position without them. The FAA disagrees. The FAA finds it necessary to provide the pilot with additional information to conduct a flare maneuver during conditions of low visibility typically encountered during EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA based the requirement in § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) on RTCA DO–315A and incorporated it in the interest of safety to ensure PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 continued safe approaches and landings in low visibility conditions.19 The FAA notes that by requiring flare prompt or flare guidance for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, it provides manufacturers flexibility to use either means to achieve acceptable touchdown performance. Airbus and Thales raised concerns about the requirement to display flare prompt or flare guidance when using autoland during EFVS operations. Airbus commented that EFVS operations using autoland should be possible, but the requirement to display flare prompt or flare guidance is not relevant when using it. Thales stated that the FAA should mandate flare prompt or flare guidance for manual operations using the EFVS to achieve acceptable touchdown performance, but it should not require an EFVS to display flare prompt or flare guidance during an approach using EFVS that is performed with a certified autoland function. The FAA disagrees with the commenters. All autoland systems to date have been approved based on performance demonstrations at runways with Category III approach infrastructure. If conducting an autoland approach with any other kind of runway infrastructure (i.e., less than Category III), the visual conditions must be sufficient for the pilot to monitor the operation and, if necessary, take immediate manual control. EFVS provides enhanced flight visibility to compensate for what the pilot cannot see unaided. In the case of an EFVS landing, the EFVS must be equipped with an approved flare prompt or flare guidance as part of the required visual information to be eligible for EFVS operational approval to land. For this reason, even if the crew is approved to use autoland during an EFVS operation, the EFVS must be equipped with and must display all of the required features. i. Pilot Monitoring Display When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, § 91.176(a)(1)(ii) requires the aircraft to be equipped with a display that provides the pilot monitoring 20 with 19 RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association. It was founded in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics to advance the art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems for the benefit of the public. The organization functions as a Federal Advisory Committee and develops consensus-based recommendations on contemporary aviation issues. The organization’s recommendations are often used as the basis for government and private sector decisions as well as the foundation for many FAA documents. For more information, see https://www.rtca.org. 20 The term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ refers to the individual who is sitting at the pilot controls and E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 EFVS sensor imagery Also, as proposed, the pilot monitoring display may provide symbology but any symbology displayed may not adversely obscure the sensor imagery of the runway environment. However, the FAA is not adopting the requirement for the pilot monitoring display to be located within the maximum primary field of view 21 of the pilot monitoring. This departure from what the FAA originally proposed arose as a result of the FAA’s own continued review of the proposal. The FAA is also not adopting the requirement for the EFVS sensor imagery and aircraft flight symbology to be displayed to the pilot monitoring on a HUD or an equivalent display for certain future EFVS operations at the Administrator’s discretion. This departure from what the FAA originally proposed arose out of comments. Upon further reflection, the FAA is not adopting the requirement for the PM display to be located in the ‘‘maximum primary field of view’’ because the term ‘‘maximum primary field of view’’ is not used or defined in the regulations todate and the proposed location requirement is unnecessary. When a PM display is installed on an aircraft, it must meet the arrangement and visibility requirements in §§ 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321, which will achieve the same objective as the proposed requirement by requiring the PM display to be located so that any pilot seated at the controls can monitor the airplane’s flight path and the instruments with minimum head and eye movement. The FAA will also require aircraft that pre-date §§ 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321 to meet the arrangement and visibility requirements in those sections for the installation of PM displays. Because the airworthiness requirements of §§ 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321 will already ensure the proper monitoring the operation of the aircraft. Historically, the FAA has referred to this individual as the pilot not flying. In 2003, the FAA amended AC 120–71A, Standard Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers, and replaced the term ‘‘pilot not flying’’ with ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ to convey that the pilot not flying should be actively engaged in the safe operation of the aircraft and, as such, should be trained and evaluated in performing active pilot monitoring skills. See Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800, 67812 (Nov. 12, 2013) (discussing pilot monitoring duties and training). 21 Maximum primary field of view is based on the maximum vertical and horizontal visual fields from the design eye reference point. The values for the maximum vertical visual field (relative to normal line-of-sight forward of the airplane) are +40 degrees up and ¥20 degrees down. The values for the maximum horizontal visual field are +35 degrees left and +35 degrees right. AC 25–11B and AC 20–167A. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 placement of a PM display, the FAA finds it unnecessary to adopt a location requirement in the operating rule. Several commenters shared concerns about the provision in proposed § 91.176(a)(1)(ii) that would have allowed the Administrator to require a head up display, or equivalent display, for the pilot monitoring based upon the EFVS operation to be conducted. Boeing noted that designers and operators needed to know the conditions under which the FAA might require a head up display for the pilot monitoring. Similarly, Airbus asked the FAA for clarification, and Thales suggested that the FAA develop criteria to define when a pilot monitoring had to have a head up display. Additionally, Bombardier Aerospace was concerned that, while the FAA intended the language to provide for future technological advancements, the agency could immediately apply the requirement to current installations where it would be impractical to implement. The FAA agrees with the commenters that the proposal was unclear. The FAA intended to address future EFVS operations and technological advancements; however, based on the confusion surrounding the provision, the FAA has decided not to adopt it. Instead, to facilitate the performance of future EFVS operations, the FAA is adding new § 91.176(a)(4) that states that the Administrator may prescribe additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics, operational procedures, or approach characteristics. These requirements will be specified in an operator’s operations specifications, management specifications, or letter of authorization authorizing the use of EFVS. This provision will better facilitate the FAA’s ability to respond to future technological developments without causing confusion around the pilot monitoring requirement. Boeing also commented that the pilot monitoring display requirements should include a horizon line, flight path vector cue, and FPARC in addition to the EFVS sensor imagery. Boeing contended that without this aircraft flight symbology, the pilot monitoring would have no cues with which to judge performance and noted that RTCA DO–315A specifies the additional cues. During EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, when a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the aircraft must be equipped with a display that provides the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor imagery. The FAA finds it unnecessary to require additional features on the PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90135 pilot monitoring display, such as an artificial horizon line, a flight path vector cue, and a FPARC, because the pilot monitoring display requirements are intended only to enable that pilot to see a real time sensor image of the required visual references. Section 91.176(a)(1)(ii) is a minimum requirement, however. Accordingly, it does not preclude OEMs and operators from including additional features, such as those described by the commenters. The FAA notes that any additional features that are displayed on the pilot monitoring display may not interfere with the EFVS image of the required visual references. Boeing further stated that it was unclear whether the pilot monitoring display had to be a repeater of the display provided to the flying pilot, or an independent system. Sierra Nevada Corporation submitted a similar comment asking the FAA to clarify whether the EFVS sensor imagery required to be provided to the pilot monitoring had to be identical to that provided to the pilot flying on the HUD, or whether the pilot monitoring display could utilize imagery that was augmented by color, symbolic representation of features and obstacles, a synthetic database of features and obstacles, an alternate perspective view such as a top-down view, an alternate EFVS sensor source, or blending. The FAA intends the regulatory requirement for the pilot monitoring display to be performance based. Accordingly, the provision does not specifically require a repeater display or an independent system. Nor does it preclude the display of imagery that is augmented by features such as those described by Sierra Nevada Corporation. Whether the pilot monitoring display should be a repeater display or an independent system will depend on the operation to be conducted. AC 20–167A contains means of compliance for the pilot monitoring display. The FAA also notes that, as display technology continues to improve, it will evaluate additional display capabilities and features that become available provided the display meets applicable airworthiness requirements. Rockwell Collins also submitted comments on the pilot monitoring display. It asserted that the FAA should take into account other monitoring methods, such as those used by a pilot monitoring the safe conduct of a Head up Guidance System (HGS)-flown Category III approach, landing, and rollout. Such monitoring methods would not require a second HUD, nor would they require the pilot monitoring display to repeat the HUD symbology. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 For example, a person could use expanded deviation scales based on global positioning system (GPS) to verify alignment with the runway, and ADS–B information to monitor other aircraft and vehicles on the runway. Rockwell Collins also proposed that the requirement identify the items that the pilot monitoring must monitor and assess, rather than indicating the actual equipment the pilot monitoring must use to perform the monitoring tasks, such as a display of EFVS imagery. The FAA is not adopting Rockwell Collins’ recommendations. When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the pilot monitoring must have a display that provides him or her with EFVS sensor imagery. This requirement is necessary because, when the pilot flying relies on EFVS from DA/ DH to touchdown and rollout, it cannot be assumed that the pilot monitoring sees anything of the outside environment using natural vision. Providing the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor imagery supports his or her view of the outside environment, enables confirmation of the required visual references and safe conduct of the approach and landing, and provides common situational awareness between the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring. The FAA notes, however, that the pilot monitoring display is not the only source of flight path information available to the pilot monitoring. The pilot monitoring may use GPS and ADS–B information, as Rockwell Collins suggested, in addition to the EFVS sensor imagery. The FAA further notes that the pilot monitoring should monitor sources of information that he or she would normally monitor during an approach and landing. j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to Rotorcraft Operations The GAMA, HAI, and Eurocopter and American Eurocopter commented that the scope of the NPRM appeared to apply to both fixed-wing airplanes and rotorcraft; however, the technical requirements appear to apply only to fixed wing airplanes. GAMA and Eurocopter and American Eurocopter recommended that the FAA modify § 91.176(a)(1), as proposed in the NPRM, to ensure the equipment requirements accommodated the differences between airplanes and rotorcraft. They also recommended that the FAA consider permitting the use of EFVS in rotorcraft IFR operations, such as wide area augmentation system/ localizer performance with vertical guidance (WAAS/LPV) approaches, published instrument approach procedures to heliports, offshore VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 helicopter operations, and point in space instrument approaches. The FAA notes that this rule does not preclude persons from conducting EFVS operations under IFR in rotorcraft. Section 91.176(a) limits EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to approaches with a DA/DH and prohibits the pilot from using circling minimums. Currently, there are no instrument approach criteria or procedures that have been developed for straight-in landing operations below DA/DH under IFR to heliports or platforms. If such approach procedures were developed in the future for heliports or platforms, along with appropriate visual reference requirements for rotorcraft operations,22 persons could conduct EFVS operations to a landing in rotorcraft on these approaches. However, EFVS operations may not be conducted on approaches to a point-in-space followed by a ‘‘proceed VFR’’ visual segment, or on approaches designed to a specific landing site using a ‘‘proceed visually’’ visual segment. HAI also commented that the FAA should expand its references to landing and rollout to address the maneuverability of aircraft certificated under parts 27 and 29 and that it should specify ‘‘approach to hover’’ and ‘‘hover taxiing.’’ The FAA disagrees with the commenter. The FAA finds it unnecessary to expand the terminology in the EFVS regulations to specifically encompass the maneuverability of rotorcraft because it did not intend the terms landing and rollout to restrict persons from conducting EFVS operations in rotorcraft. The FAA also notes that this rule does not address taxi operations. Accordingly, this rule does not apply to hover taxiing. k. Requirement To Obtain a Certificate of Waiver When Conducting Certain EFVS Operations Section 91.176(d) states that the requirement to have an EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements specified in § 91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2)(iii) does not apply to operations conducted in an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations provided the Administrator has determined that the operations can be conducted safely in accordance with operating limitations issued for that purpose. This paragraph was added as a result of comments. 22 The visual reference requirements under § 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) were derived from the visual reference requirements under § 91.175(c)(3), which were established for runways. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The 2004 EFVS regulations, specifically § 91.175(l)(2), required a person to have a certified EFVS in order to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below the authorized DA/DH or MDA. Proposed § 91.176 would have required the same. The FAA recognizes, however, that an EFVS used to obtain an FAA type design approval may not yet be certified. To date, a person obtaining an FAA type design approval with an EFVS that has not yet been certified has been required to obtain a certificate of waiver 23 in order to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below the DA/DH or MDA during flights prior to type design approval. FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Elbit Systems of America, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and GAMA commented that the FAA should eliminate the requirement to obtain a certificate of waiver from the EFVS rules in order to demonstrate compliance during EFVS certification flights. Several of these commenters further stated that the FAA should remove the term ‘‘certified’’ because the operating rules assume the equipment is certified. Additionally, many commenters felt that the FAA should not require waivers for certification flight tests that are conducted with aircraft in the experimental category. The FAA acknowledges the commenters’ concerns and is revising the EFVS regulations by adding § 91.176(d), which enables persons to conduct EFVS certification flights without obtaining a waiver, provided the Administrator has determined that the operations can be conducted safely in accordance with operating limitations issued for that purpose. The FAA will issue operating limitations when it approves an applicant’s program letter describing the flight operations to be conducted and issues the experimental certificate for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations. The FAA is also adding the exception and a reference to § 91.176(d) to the introductions in § 91.176(a) and (b). The FAA finds that eliminating the waiver requirement, which resulted from the promulgation of § 91.175(l) and (m) in 2004, will streamline the process both for the FAA and for applicants seeking to certify an EFVS. This will be accomplished without a reduction in FAA oversight. The FAA notes, however, that an operator is not relieved from complying with the EFVS operating rules when it places an aircraft in the experimental category; it 23 Section 91.175(l) was a rule subject to waiver under § 91.905. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations is only relieved from the requirement to have an EFVS with an FAA type design approval for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with the regulations. AC 90–106A and AC 20–167A contain guidance material pertaining to the § 91.176(d) exception. 2. Operating Requirements mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS Operations Under § 91.176(a), a person conducting an EFVS operation in an aircraft below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout must conduct the operation on an approach with minimums 24 that include a DA/DH. In the NPRM, the FAA had proposed to permit an EFVS operation below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout only using a straight-in precision instrument approach procedure or an approach procedure with approved vertical guidance. This change in the final rule arises out of comments asking the FAA to clarify what instrument approach procedures can be used for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. This change in language does not constitute a change in operational concept. Boeing and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) objected to proposed § 91.176(a) because it was unclear which approach procedures they could use to conduct EFVS operations. For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, § 91.176(a) no longer states that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout may be conducted using only straight-in precision instrument approach procedures or approach procedures with approved vertical guidance. Boeing objected to limiting EFVS operations to ‘‘straight-in’’ approaches as defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary (PCG). Relying on the PCG, Boeing asserted that a straight-in approach applies to an approach with no procedure turn, and a straight-in landing refers to a landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach. Boeing contended that flying a procedure turn should not affect whether someone could conduct EFVS operations. Boeing recommended that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout be permitted using a ‘‘straight-in landing’’ from a precision approach or 24 See Instrument Flying Handbook, FAA–H– 8083–15B (2012) (stating that the term ‘‘minimums’’ refers to the landing section of an instrument approach chart, which sets forth the lowest altitude and visibility approved for the instrument approach procedure). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 an approach with approved vertical guidance. Boeing recommended similar revisions to § 91.176(b). The FAA agrees with Boeing that operators could have concluded from the proposal that a ‘‘straight-in’’ instrument approach procedure refers to an approach with no procedure turn. This is because the term ‘‘straight-in approach’’ is used differently in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), the PCG, and the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).25 The FAA did not intend to limit EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to instrument approaches where the final approach was begun without first having executed a procedure turn. Therefore, § 91.176(a) now requires that a person must conduct an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout on an approach with minimums that include a DA/DH. This revision ensures that a person may conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout using precision approaches or approaches with approved vertical guidance regardless of whether the pilot first executes a procedure turn. Furthermore, paragraph (a)(2)(i) clarifies that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout are not permitted on circling approaches. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(i) eliminates the confusion surrounding the terms straight-in approach and straight-in landing, while achieving the same objective—prohibiting EFVS operations using circling minimums. The FAA made similar revisions to § 91.176(b)(2)(i) as suggested by Boeing. Boeing also recommended that the FAA permit EFVS operations on curved required navigation performance (RNP) approaches, which may have a straightin landing segment. Boeing stated that the use of curved RNP approaches is increasing, that they are often used in mountainous terrain where go-arounds 25 The AIM provides the aviation community with basic flight information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. The PCG promotes a common understanding of terms used in the ATC system, including terms which are intended for pilot/ controller communications. The TERPS consists of criteria for constructing terminal instrument procedures. In the AIM, ‘‘straight-in approach’’ describes a procedure with straight-in landing minimums, without regard to whether or not a procedure turn is required. In the PCG, ‘‘straightin approach’’ means an instrument approach where the final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, but not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums. The PCG defines a ‘‘straight-in landing’’ as ‘‘a landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach.’’ The use of ‘‘straight-in approach’’ in TERPS criteria generally refers to an approach that is aligned with a runway—not necessarily within 30 degrees—and for which straight-in landing minimums are authorized. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90137 could be more of an issue, and that EFVS could improve safety and efficiency in such situations. The FAA agrees that § 91.176(a) and (b) should not prohibit persons from conducting EFVS operations on curved RNP approaches that have a straight-in landing segment. RNP approaches are approved, vertically guided instrument approach procedures that are designed to align with a specific runway and terminate with a DA. While their line of minima is charted somewhat differently than other approaches with straight-in ‘‘S’’ line of minima, the curved RNP line of minima specifies a DA. Accordingly, § 91.176(a) and (b) permit RNP approaches. However, because EFVS performance may affect the specific approaches that an operator may conduct, the FAA may define applicable limitations in an operator’s Operations Specifications (OpSpec), Management Specifications (MSpec), or Letter of Authorization (LOA) accordingly. ALPA stated that the proposal would permit an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout on a ‘‘straight-in precision instrument approach procedure or an approach with approved vertical guidance,’’ which would seem to encompass an approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV). However, APV describes a class of approach procedures defined in ICAO Annex 6 as an approach procedure ‘‘which utilizes lateral and vertical guidance but does not meet the requirements established for precision approach and landing operations.’’ Based on this definition, a person could conclude that an APV approach is a non-precision approach procedure. The proposal indicated that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout would not be permitted on nonprecision approaches. ALPA noted that this could cause confusion and recommended that the FAA clarify what it meant by ‘‘approved vertical guidance.’’ The FAA agrees with ALPA that the phrase ‘‘straight-in precision approach procedure or an approach with approved vertical guidance’’ is confusing because persons could conclude that APV approaches are nonprecision approaches, which are not permitted under § 91.176(a). The FAA did not intend to prohibit persons from conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on APV approaches, which will have a charted DA/DH. Therefore, for this reason and in addition to the reasons Boeing raised, § 91.176(a) now permits EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on approaches with minimums that include a DA/DH. Additionally, as mentioned previously, § 91.176(a)(2)(i) E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations specifies that persons conducting EFVS operations may not use circling minimums. The FAA believes these revisions clarify that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout may be conducted on APV approaches. Sierra Nevada Corporation suggested editorial changes to proposed § 91.176(a) to clarify that persons must follow the requirements specified in paragraph (a). The commenter recommended similar revisions to § 91.176(b). The FAA agrees with the commenter and adopted the editorial changes in § 91.176(a), which more clearly articulate the regulatory requirements. The FAA did not, however, adopt the editorial changes in § 91.176(b) because they did not coincide with the revised language in that paragraph. Dassault Aviation asked whether the FAA would take into account the new approach classifications described in the revised draft ICAO All Weather Operations (AWO) Manual in the EFVS regulations. Dassault Aviation stated that the draft AWO Manual describes 2D and 3D approaches rather than ‘‘precision approaches’’ and ‘‘approaches with vertical guidance.’’ The FAA is not including the ICAO terms or definitions in this final rule as they are outside the scope of the NPRM. The necessary references and descriptions in U.S. guidance material have not been updated at this time, but the FAA notes that the agency continues to work with ICAO on this subject. Rockwell Collins commented that the FAA’s statement in the proposal about not permitting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on nonprecision approaches implies that nonprecision approaches are no longer an approved EFVS operation. The FAA disagrees. Section 91.176 contains two distinct types of EFVS operations. Section 91.176(a) contains the new regulations, which enable EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Section 91.176(b) contains the regulations originally found in § 91.175(l) and (m), which enable EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Section 91.176(a) permits EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout only on approaches that have a DA/DH. However, § 91.176(b) continues to permit EFVS operations down to 100 feet above the TDZE on non-precision approaches, just as § 91.175(l) has allowed these operations since 2004. Finally, Gulfstream commented that § 91.176(a) should allow EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on the same instrument approach procedures for which EFVS to 100 feet operations are permitted, which would VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 include approaches without published vertical guidance. The FAA does not agree. The intent of § 91.176(a) is to provide for a stabilized descent and to ensure the aircraft is oriented toward the runway of intended landing while conducting an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout. A stabilized descent reduces the need to maneuver at low altitudes, thereby minimizing risk. Therefore, the pilot must conduct the EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout on an approach to a DA or DH using vertical guidance that is part of the approach design. The FAA notes, however, that operators who have been issued OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073, ‘‘Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) Using Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) as a Decision Altitude (DA)/Decision Height (DH),’’ may conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on certain nonprecision approaches that use an MDA as a DA/DH in accordance with the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073 authorizes operators to use an MDA as a DA/DH using vertical navigation (VNAV) on certain instrument approach procedures, which are listed in OpSpec/ MSpec/LOA C052, ‘‘Straight-In NonPrecision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports.’’ It has always been the FAA’s intent to allow EFVS operations on certain non-precision approaches in accordance with OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073. However, as discussed above, we made changes to proposed § 91.176(a) as a result of comments. In making these changes, § 91.176(a) would have prohibited EFVS operations on certain non-precision approaches conducted in accordance with OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073 because paragraph (a) would have restricted EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to approach procedures with minimums that included a DA or DH. Accordingly, the FAA is adding language to § 91.176(a) that allows an operator who is otherwise authorized by the Administrator, such as through OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA C073, to use an MDA as a DA/DH with vertical navigation on an instrument approach procedure, to conduct an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout in an aircraft below the authorized MDA in accordance with that authorization. When an operator is conducting an EFVS operation in accordance with OpSpec/MSpec//LOA C073, that operator must still meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of § 91.176. The FAA notes that it is revising the regulatory language to be performance PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 based and allow for new technologies and approaches that ensure a stabilized visual segment. Accordingly, this final rule allows EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on all approach procedures with an authorized DA or DH, and it omits direct reference to the types of approach procedures permitted and eliminates the term ‘‘approved vertical guidance.’’ The FAA recognizes that many factors may affect an operator’s ability to conduct an EFVS operation. As stated in § 91.176(a)(4), the FAA may prescribe additional limitations through an OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA to ensure the safe conduct of EFVS operations. b. Touchdown Zone As proposed in the NPRM, for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, § 91.176(a)(2)(v) requires the aircraft to continuously be in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and § 91.176(a)(2)(vi) requires the descent rate to allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. Several commenters raised concerns about the term ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in § 91.176(a)(2)(vi). Boeing commented that the FAA needs to define the term ‘‘touchdown zone’’ for purposes of EFVS operations and pointed out that it is defined differently in different documents. For example, the AIM defines the touchdown zone as the first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold, but RTCA DO–315A and its revision, RTCA DO–315B, define the touchdown zone as the first 3,000 feet or first one-third of the runway, whichever is shorter. Boeing asked the FAA for clarification because applicants and EFVS equipment designers need to know what the performance expectations are for the EFVS equipment. Dassault Aviation recommended that the FAA specify that the touchdown zone is the first 3,000 feet or the first one-third of the runway because the 3,000-foot metric may not be adequate for short runways. An individual commenter expressed similar concerns and added that ICAO defines touchdown zone as the portion of a runway, beyond the threshold, where it is intended that a landing aircraft first contact the runway. He also noted that other FAA documents contain guidance to land in the first one-third of a runway. Given the operational implications of EFVS operations, he recommended that the FAA revise the EFVS rule and the AIM to emphasize that landing in the first third of the E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 runway or the first 3,000 feet, whichever is less, should suffice for almost all landing operations by fixed wing aircraft. The FAA agrees with the commenters that, for the purpose of EFVS operations, pilots should touch down in the first 3,000 feet or the first one-third of the runway, whichever is shorter. However, the FAA will not amend the definition of ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in the AIM, nor define ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in the EFVS rule because the term has a broader application than EFVS operations. The AIM contains the ICAO definition of touchdown zone but also defines it as the first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. This definition is used to determine TDZE in the development of straight-in landing minimums for instrument approaches. The subject of landing performance is complex and is affected by many variables such as available landing runway, surface conditions, aircraft performance, operating procedures, and many other factors. Furthermore, the use of the term touchdown zone in § 91.176(a)(2)(vi) is similar to its use in other sections of the regulations that address both EFVS and other operations, such as §§ 91.175(c)(1), 121.651(c)(1), 121.651(d)(1), and 91.175(l)(1), the latter of which is being moved to § 91.176(b)(2)(v) in this final rule. Accordingly, although the FAA does not consider it appropriate to amend the definition of ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in this rule, the FAA notes that AC 20–167A specifies a relevant means of compliance to obtain airworthiness approval for EFVS. AC 20–167A, paragraph 6–2(f)(4) states that, during airworthiness performance demonstrations, persons should demonstrate longitudinal touchdown performance within the first one-third, or the first 3,000 feet of the runway, whichever is more restrictive, and touchdown performance should be equivalent to or better than that achieved in visual operations for the specific aircraft. c. Definition of ‘‘EFVS Operation’’ and Underlying Operational Concepts Section 1.1 defines ‘‘EFVS operation’’ as an operation in which visibility conditions require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct the rollout. Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to clarify why the definition of an EFVS operation includes determining enhanced flight visibility, identifying VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 required visual references, and conducting the rollout, whereas the EFVS I and EFVS II operations referred to in AC 90–106A only appear to address approaches below DA/DH and approaches to touchdown. The definition of an EFVS operation is consistent with the operational descriptions in proposed AC 90–106A. While an EFVS can provide situational awareness in any phase of flight, such use does not constitute an EFVS operation unless visibility conditions require the use of an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct the rollout. When flight visibility using natural vision is less than what is required by the instrument approach procedure being flown, a person may perform an EFVS operation. It would be an EFVS operation in this scenario because the visibility conditions require the person to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below DA/DH. More specifically, the person must use the EFVS to assess that the enhanced flight visibility is not less than what is required by the instrument approach procedure and to identify the required visual references. The EFVS I and EFVS II operations referred to in proposed AC 90–106A are consistent with the definition of an EFVS operation, because they address operations where the visibility conditions require the use of an EFVS for descent, namely, EFVS operations. The FAA notes, however, that AC 90–106A no longer contains the terms EFVS I and EFVS II. Instead, that AC uses terminology consistent with § 91.176. d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and EFVS Operations The Aerospace Medical Association commented that many airports are installing new position, taxi, and obstruction lights that use LED lights. It stated that night vision goggles (NVGs) and current EFVS systems are unable to sense LED lights. As a result, aircrew using EFVS to descend through the weather may not acquire visual aids or obstruction lights that use LEDs. Central Management Services (CMS) submitted a similar comment noting that EFVS is designed to sense incandescent lights, not LED lights, and that as airports install LED lighting to save money, the new lighting will eliminate the benefits of EFVS. The commenter also stated that the FAA should require airports to install Infrared (IR) emitters in all new LED airport lighting systems and retrofit existing LED installations. Additionally, the commenter stated that airports will PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90139 not spend the money to install IR emitters on their own, and it is only a matter of time before LEDs appear in approach lighting and runway lighting systems. The FAA acknowledges the commenters’ concerns regarding LED lighting; however, the FAA disagrees that the installation of LED lights will eliminate the benefits of EFVS and it does not mandate the installation of specific lighting technologies. On January 4, 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandates phasing out certain incandescent lights for energy conservation purposes. As a result, LED lighting is becoming more prevalent in the NAS. While currently approved IRbased EFVS cannot sense LED lighting, LEDs do not completely eliminate the benefits of EFVS. The EFVS regulations provide for required visual references other than lighting, such as markings, the runway threshold, and the runway touchdown zone landing surface. Therefore, as long as a pilot can see the required visual references using an EFVS, he or she may conduct an EFVS operation. The FAA also notes that the presence of LEDs does not make an EFVS operation unsafe. If the required visual references are not distinctly visible and identifiable by the pilot, then the pilot must execute a missed approach just as he or she would if the approach were being conducted with natural vision instead of EFVS. The FAA has addressed operational considerations associated with LED lighting in AC 90–106A and Information for Operators (InFO) 11004, Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS), Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS), and Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Compatibility with Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Airports and on Obstacles. Also, EFVS sensors based on other technologies might be developed and approved in the future, and thus would be unaffected by the installation of LED airport and runway lighting.26 26 The FAA and industry are currently working together to address EFVS and LED interoperability through the SAE G–20 Airport Lighting Committee. This committee was tasked by the FAA to evaluate and recommend potential solutions. To date, several prototype IR/LED light fixtures have been developed and are currently being tested at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center. Additionally, in October 2014, the FAA conducted an LED Symposium comprised of FAA, other government agencies, SAE G–20, and industry participants. One of the action items from the LED Symposium was to develop a comprehensive operational test plan and conduct operational flights and evaluations using EFVS, the LED approach lighting system at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center, and prototype infrared emitters. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Furthermore, the FAA does not mandate installation of specific lighting technologies. Airport operators decide what approved lighting technologies they will install at their airport location, and incandescent and LED airport lighting technologies both meet the requirements of § 139.311, ‘‘Marking, signs, and lighting.’’ Lighting technology manufacturers have significantly reduced the availability of traditional incandescent lighting technology for airport applications as a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act. e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 Operators To Conduct EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) requires a person conducting EFVS operations under part 91 to conduct the operation in accordance with an LOA unless the operation is conducted under subpart K of part 91, or conducted in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations.27 This slightly differs from what was proposed in the NPRM, in that the FAA did not propose to provide an exception from the LOA requirement for EFVS operations conducted under part 91 in aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations. Three commenters expressed concerns about requiring an LOA for part 91 operators to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. An individual commented that requiring part 91 operators to obtain an LOA is an unnecessary regulatory requirement; however, he supported the FAA’s proposal to require training and recent flight experience for EFVS operations. Central Management Services and an individual commented that pilots with a demonstrated history of EFVS training and currency should not be required to obtain an LOA and should be ‘‘grandfathered’’ under the new EFVS regulation. Central Management Services further stated that only pilots new to EFVS technology and equipment should be required to obtain an LOA. Central Management Services and an individual contended that there is precedence for ‘‘grandfathering’’ pilots with previous experience and 27 The FAA also added language to § 91.176(a)(2)(viii) so persons who are otherwise authorized to conduct EFVS operations under other operating rules (i.e. subpart K of part 91 and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135) do not have to obtain an LOA to conduct part 91 operations such as ferry flights. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 pointed to those paragraphs in § 61.31 pertaining to pilots who had previous experience operating pressurized aircraft above 25,000 feet and pilots who had previous tailwheel experience. HAI, Central Management Services, and an individual expressed concern about the length of time it generally takes the FAA to issue an LOA. Because of the performance-based structure of the EFVS regulations under § 91.176(a), the FAA finds it necessary to require part 91 operators, other than those conducting operations under part 91 subpart K or in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations, to obtain an LOA to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA has written § 91.176(a) in a way that is performance-based rather than explicitly specifying visibilities or other EFVS operating conditions and limitations in rule language. The FAA has structured the regulations so that it can manage the operating conditions and limitations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout through an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA. The FAA specifically structured the EFVS regulations this way to provide flexibility and to enable the FAA to structure an operator’s authorization in a way that links equipage and system performance to specific operational capabilities. This structure also enables the FAA to respond more rapidly to new technology. Rather than restricting the use of all EFVS to a rigid and limiting set of visibility values and operating conditions and limitations, the FAA can permit a range of EFVS operations as vision system technologies and appropriate equipment certification guidance are developed. The FAA believes this structure best accommodates future growth while eliminating the need for additional rulemaking. Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the commenters’ concerns about the length of time it generally takes to issue an LOA. The FAA notes that every effort is made to process applications in a timely manner. The FAA notes that § 91.176(a)(2)(viii) now excepts EFVS operations conducted under part 91 in aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations from the requirement to obtain an LOA. These operations typically consist of a series of flights conducted to collect data or show compliance with regulations during EFVS certification activities using aircraft that have been placed in the PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 experimental category. The flights are authorized when the FAA approves the program letter 28 describing the flight operations to be conducted and issues the experimental certificate with operating limitations. The FAA authorization is time-limited and carries an expiration date. Because these operations require FAA-approval, are time-limited, and carry operating limitations specific to the flights to be conducted, an LOA to conduct these operations is not required. f. EFVS Operations Outside the U.S.29 Pursuant to § 91.176(a)(2)(x) and (b)(2)(viii), any person serving as a required flightcrew member for a foreign air carrier subject to part 129 must conduct both EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE in accordance with OpSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS. The appropriate International Field Office (IFO) is responsible for authorizing part 129 foreign air carriers for EFVS operations. AC 90–106A contains additional information for EFVS operations conducted by foreign air carriers in the United States. Part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators, who are required to obtain an MSpec under § 91.176(b)(2)(vii)) are not required to obtain an LOA in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.176(b). Verizon conducts EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under part 91 in the United States and pointed out that the rules for EFVS operations to 100 feet already in effect do not contain a provision for issuing an LOA to a part 91 operator. Verizon commented that, because it does not have an LOA, it has been unable to obtain approval from a foreign CAA to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 28 For an aircraft to be eligible for an experimental certificate the aircraft must be registered and the applicant must satisfy one or more of the purposes stated in 14 CFR 21.191. Pursuant to § 21.193, applicants for experimental certificates must submit certain information with an application for airworthiness certification. This information is referred to as the ‘‘program letter.’’ The FAA uses the program letter to assist in establishing eligibility for an experimental certificate. The program letter must contain the required items listed in § 21.193 and be detailed enough to permit the FAA to prescribe the conditions and limitations necessary to ensure safe operation of the aircraft. ‘‘Airworthiness Certification of Products and Articles,’’ Order 8130.2H (Feb. 4, 2015). 29 A person serving as a required flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft conducting operations under part 91 is not required to obtain an LOA in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE because § 91.176(b)(2) does not require part 91 operators, other than those operating under part 91 subpart K, to obtain FAA authorization to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 above the TDZE in the foreign country. As a result, it has been unable to use EFVS on its Gulfstream fleet for operational benefit outside of the United States. Verizon requested that the FAA revise § 91.176(b) to make provision for issuing an LOA to part 91 operators to facilitate approval by foreign CAAs. The FAA is not revising § 91.176(b) as the commenter suggested. Part 91 operators have been authorized to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE in the United States without an LOA for over 12 years. However, the FAA is aware that certain foreign CAAs require an authorization from the State of the operator in order to obtain approval to conduct EFVS operations in that country. The FAA is developing a process to facilitate foreign CAA approval for part 91 operators. AC 90–106A contains additional information about international EFVS operations. g. EFVS Authorizations Section 91.176(a) contains the regulations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, and § 91.176(b) contains the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Under § 91.176(a)(2)(viii)–(xii), operators must obtain an LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS in order to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Similarly, under § 91.176(b)(2)(vii)–(x), operators, except for part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators) must obtain an LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Thales asked the FAA to clarify whether it will issue authorizations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout separately from authorizations for EFVS to 100 feet above the TDZE. Thales also asked whether authorizations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout will include EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Lastly, Thales asked if operators who are currently authorized to conduct operations under § 91.175(l) and (m) will have to reapply for authorization to conduct EFVS operations under new § 91.176. The FAA will issue separate authorizations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Operators who are currently authorized to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, who wish to conduct additional operations now permitted under this rule, may do so only if those operations are authorized by their OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 Operators currently conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may continue to conduct those operations under their existing authorization until the FAA revises the operator’s authorization to conform to the applicable provisions of the EFVS final rule. Lastly, AC 90–106A, Section 10, ‘‘Operational Approval Process for EFVS Operations,’’ provides guidance on the operational approval process and obtaining authorizations for EFVS operations. h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Dassault Aviation, Elbit Systems of America, and Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that the FAA’s notice did not address takeoff credit for EFVS. They noted that the FAA referenced existing processes through which takeoff credit for EFVS could be approved and requested that the FAA clarify those processes. In addition, Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA address when it plans to develop operational requirements and associated guidance material for takeoff using EFVS. The FAA did not propose to enable the use of EFVS during takeoff operations because it may already authorize these operations through existing processes under § 91.175(f), which prescribes civil airport takeoff minimums for persons conducting operations under part 121, 125, 129, or 135. Under § 91.175(f), a person conducting operations under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 may obtain an authorization from the FAA, such as an OpSpec or LOA, authorizing lower than standard takeoff minimums, which may include the use of EFVS. The regulations, however, do not prescribe any takeoff minimums for part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators which under § 91.1039(e) have a minimum takeoff visibility of 600 feet). Therefore, part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators) may conduct takeoff operations using EFVS without obtaining an authorization from the FAA to conduct such operations. It has come to the FAA’s attention, however, that there is no existing process under the regulations for part 91, subpart K operators to obtain an authorization from the FAA to conduct takeoff operations using EFVS when the visibility is less than 600 feet. The FAA is therefore amending § 91.1039(e) to permit part 91, subpart K operators to conduct takeoff operations using EFVS when the visibility is less than 600 feet, provided these operations are conducted in accordance with the certificate holder’s MSpec for EFVS operations. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90141 The FAA is aware of the need for operational guidance regarding the use of EFVS during takeoff operations and is currently working to develop it. i. Combined Vision Systems A couple of commenters raised concerns about the use of synthetic vision. The HAI commented that § 91.176 and AC 90–106A should address the use of synthetic vision, when combined with an EVS that uses a real-time sensor image and appropriate flight information. Rockwell Collins commented that there are future technologies that could provide a realtime image of the external scene topography, which may be based on a database or communicated position information. It further commented that while these technologies may be considered combined vision system (CVS) applications,30 the lines between enhanced vision, synthetic vision, and combined vision may become even less defined over time. Rockwell Collins suggested that only synthetic vision systems which exclusively use a computer-generated image of the external scene topography should not be addressed by the operational requirements in this rule. Furthermore, Eurocopter and American Eurocopter commented that the FAA should clarify whether a person could use CVS as an EFVS provided the CVS satisfied part 91’s requirements. The FAA disagrees that § 91.176 should address the use of synthetic vision. The amendments to part 91 address new operational benefits and requirements for EFVS only. However, a CVS consisting of an enhanced flight vision system and synthetic vision could be approved for EFVS operations if it met all of the requirements of the EFVS regulations. j. Use of the Term ‘‘EFVS’’ in Rule Language Garmin International commented that the proposed rule language unnecessarily references EFVS. It pointed out that in the future, part 91 might be updated to include additional technologies. Removing references to EFVS, and using only references to § 91.176, would eliminate the necessity for future revisions of the regulations. The FAA disagrees with Garmin. The FAA is retaining the references to EFVS in the rule language because the rule is intended to address new operational 30 A combined vision system involves a combination of SVS and EVS or EFVS. See AC No. 20–167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations benefits and requirements for EFVS; it is not intended to address other systems that do not meet requirements applicable to EFVS. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 k. Approach Plates and EFVS Operations Under § 91.176(a), EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout may be conducted at any airport below the authorized DA/DH. Under § 91.176(b), EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may be conducted at any airport below the authorized DA/DH or MDA to 100 feet above the TDZE. Additionally, EFVS operations using circling minimums are not authorized pursuant to § 91.176(a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i). The Aerospace Medical Association commented that an EFVS approach plate should be developed that specifies the procedure, equipment requirements, and visibility required to conduct EFVS operations. The FAA disagrees because persons may conduct EFVS operations on any instrument approach procedure that meets the criteria specified above. Therefore, an approach plate specifically for EFVS operations is not necessary. The Aerospace Medical Association also asked whether the FAA will issue a special rating for pilots who conduct EFVS operations. The commenter stated that minimum qualification and experience should be required for pilots to perform EFVS operations. It pointed out that most airlines only permit captains to fly very low visibility takeoffs and instrument landing system (ILS) Category IIIB landings and that first officers must also have the same training. The FAA will not issue a special rating to pilots for EFVS operations. Instead, the FAA is establishing ground and flight training requirements for EFVS operations in § 61.66(a), (b), and (c), and recent flight experience and refresher training requirements for EFVS operations in § 61.66(d) and (e). The FAA believes that the training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements of § 61.66 are sufficient to ensure safe operations and that a special rating for pilots who conduct EFVS operations is unnecessary. Furthermore, Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports pertaining to specific EFVS and aircraft installations have not specified that pilot ratings for EFVS operations are necessary.31 31 FSBs make findings of operational suitability and recommend master training, checking, and currency requirements applicable to aircraft and equipment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts Airbus noted that the NPRM makes reference to ‘‘EFVS-specific callouts’’ but does not provide a precise definition of the term. Airbus requested that the FAA clarify where this term is defined in the proposed rule. The FAA does not define the term ‘‘EFVS-specific callouts.’’ The FAA used this term twice in the NPRM to describe callouts, such as ‘‘EFVS lights,’’ which are unique to EFVS operations. Operators may develop other EFVSspecific callouts related to crew coordination activities during EFVS operations. m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS Operating Requirements Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that proposed § 91.176(a)(3), which stated, ‘‘No pilot operating under this section or §§ 121.651, 125.381, and 135.225 . . .’’ should be changed to state, ‘‘No pilot operating under this section or §§ 121.651, 125.381, or 135.225 . . .’’ It also commented that the FAA should make a similar change to proposed § 91.176(b)(3) and that the FAA should delete the words ‘‘and land’’ from § 91.176(b)(3) because, under § 91.176(b), a pilot must land using natural vision and is not permitted to rely on EFVS to land. The FAA agrees with the commenter, and has revised ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ in § 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) accordingly. However, the FAA disagrees with the commenter that it should remove ‘‘and land’’ from § 91.176(b)(3) because that section contains the visibility and visual reference requirements for using an EFVS to descend below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE and for using natural vision to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown. n. Opposing Comments on the FAA’s Proposal One commenter opposed the proposal. A private individual commented that the notice proposes a set of rules that are technically ambiguous, does not provide adequate safety for air carrier operations, favors one technology over other methods and technologies the commenter considers to be better and safer, and is unnecessary to achieve the intended benefits. The commenter believes that if these provisions are implemented they will not enhance safety or operability over competing and currently available technologies, and that the proposal could result in additional and unnecessary safety vulnerability. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The commenter stated that IR-based systems cannot penetrate certain fog conditions necessary for safe flight below a 100-foot height above touchdown (HAT) and that certain radar systems, while potentially able to marginally penetrate fog, have other severe resolution limitations. The commenter believes that picture based systems can provide little more than situational awareness and do not provide adequate closed loop flight control capability for missions requiring air carrier levels of accuracy, integrity, and availability. The commenter asserted that this is why UAVs still routinely crash when flying based on visual control, even with high quality visibility systems. The commenter further asserted that if path definition and flight guidance are available, the visual scene becomes unnecessary and is only an aid to situational awareness. The FAA disagrees with the commenter and believes that this final rule provides an adequate level of safety for EFVS operations. EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE have been conducted for over 12 years. The FAA is not aware of any accidents over this time period in which EFVS was a factor. This final rule extends these operations to include EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and to permit operators using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended landing. This final rule also provides specific equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference requirements for the conduct of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Additionally, this final rule includes detailed and specific ground and flight training requirements, and recent flight experience and proficiency requirements for pilots intending to conduct EFVS operations. It also provides updated requirements for pilot compartment view and equipment for EFVS. Authorizations to conduct EFVS operations will contain operating conditions and limitations appropriate to the EFVS operations to be conducted and may prescribe additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics, operational procedures, or approach characteristics. The authorizations to conduct the additional EFVS operations as well as the new training, recent flight experience, and proficiency requirements are E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations specifically intended to address the operating conditions and limitations necessary to ensure the safe conduct of all EFVS operations. The FAA’s disposition of Boeing’s comment in Section III.F further discusses this matter. The commenter also contended that the notice was unfair and prejudiced and showed unjustified favoritism for one technology (EFVS, EVS, or SVS) over better and safer competing technologies, such as Autoland, Flight Guidance based HDDs, or Flight Guidance based HUDs, that are already adequately and fairly treated by current regulations and guidance. As an example, the commenter stated there is no safety case justification for crediting EFVS, without also crediting the far safer AUTOLAND LAND III and LAND II Modes, as well as HUD AIII modes, for flight release or dispatch credit, as well as for approach initiation or alternate minimums credit. The commenter believes that this rule will expose the FAA to significant legal challenges by OEMs and operators with far better and safer systems that are not being offered equivalent or better benefits. It is not the intent of the FAA to provide an unfair advantage to one specific technology, but rather to address the conduct of EFVS operations in this rule. Other operations were not the subject of the proposal. The FAA notes, however, that the regulations have permitted operators to conduct Category III operations to dispatch, flight release, or takeoff under IFR and initiate and continue an approach in lower than standard visibility conditions for many years. The FAA is structuring similar dispatch, flight release, and approach initiation benefits for EFVS operations in lower than standard visibility conditions within the performance limitations of the EFVS equipment to be used. 3. Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 a. Visual References Below 100 Feet Above the TDZE During EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout Under § 91.176(a)(3)(i), a pilot conducting an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout may not operate an aircraft below the authorized DA/DH and land unless that pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used. Additionally, § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) permits a pilot to continue descending below 100 feet above the TDZE and land using VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 the enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS, provided one of the following visual references is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot: The runway threshold, the lights or markings of the threshold, the runway touchdown zone landing surface, or the lights or markings of the touchdown zone. The requirement remains unchanged from the NPRM. Thales commented that § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) as proposed would have permitted a pilot to use only enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS to identify the required visual references at and below 100 feet above the TDZE. Thales stated that it is possible a pilot could see the required visual references with natural vision, but not with enhanced flight visibility. Thales recommended that § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) permit a pilot to use either enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS or natural vision to identify the required visual references to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE. It asserted that conducting a missed approach when a pilot sees the required visual references with natural vision, but not with enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS, would be unnecessary and counterproductive. The FAA disagrees with Thales that § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) should also allow the use of natural vision to identify the required visual references to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE. If visibility conditions improve after a pilot begins an EFVS operation, whether it is conducted under § 91.176(a) or (b), that pilot may continue descending to a landing using natural vision provided he or she continues the flight in accordance with existing flight rules based on natural vision, with existing requirements under § 91.175(c) for operation below DA/DH or MDA, or with existing requirements under § 91.176(b) for descending below 100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, if an operator were conducting an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout under § 91.176(a), and could acquire the visual references with natural vision at 100 feet above the TDZE, that operator would not have to conduct a missed approach as Thales suggested so long as the operator complies with the flight rules based on natural vision, § 91.175(c), or § 91.176(b).32 In order to continue descending below 100 feet above the TDZE under 32 Regardless of whether an operator is conducting an EFVS operation under § 91.176(a) or (b), the pilot must determine that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of the EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure. 14 CFR 91.176(a)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(i). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90143 § 91.176(b)(3)(iii), however, the pilot conducting the EFVS operation must meet the training requirements to conduct operations under § 91.176(b). The FAA anticipates that the majority of operators conducting EFVS operations will be authorized to conduct EFVS operations under both § 91.176(a) and (b). During an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout, the pilot must comply with both paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(iii) at 100 feet above the TDZE of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude. Therefore, at 100 feet above the TDZE and below that altitude, the enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS may not be less than the visibility prescribed in the IAP being used. Additionally, the enhanced flight visibility using EFVS must be sufficient for one of the visual references in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot. The only exceptions to these requirements would be when visibility improves such that a pilot could continue descending to a landing under the conditions described in the previous paragraph. b. Enhanced Flight Visibility Requirement During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE Under § 91.176(b)(3)(i), in order for a pilot to continue an approach below the authorized MDA or DA/DH and land, the pilot must determine that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used. This requirement differs from what the FAA proposed because it applies from descent below MDA or DA/DH until touchdown,33 rather than to the portion of the approach from the authorized MDA or DA/DH to 100 feet above the TDZE, as proposed. This change resulted from our own continued review of the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA explained that the requirements of § 91.176(b)(3)(iii) would be structured to conform to the original intent of § 91.175(l)(4). However, in clarifying the requirements of § 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4), the FAA inadvertently proposed a requirement in § 91.176(b)(3)(i) that was contrary to the original intent of § 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4). In the 2004 EFVS rule, the FAA intended § 91.175(l)(2) to provide an enhanced flight visibility requirement equivalent to § 91.175(c)(2), except that the pilot could use an EFVS to determine ‘‘enhanced flight visibility’’ 33 Section 91.175(l)(2) previously contained this requirement. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations as compared to ‘‘flight visibility’’ with natural vision.34 Additionally, the FAA intended § 91.175(l)(4) to require that, in addition to determining that the enhanced flight visibility is not less than that prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used, at 100 feet above the TDZE and below, one of the required visual references would have to be distinctly visible and identifiable without relying on the EFVS for the pilot to continue to a landing. As evidenced from a legal interpretation dated September 10, 2010, the pilot must maintain the flight visibility required in § 91.175(c)(2) from descent below MDA or DA/DH until touchdown.35 Because the FAA intended the requirements of § 91.176(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(iii) to conform to the original intent of § 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4), and the original intent of § 91.175(l)(2) was to provide a requirement equivalent to § 91.175(c)(2), § 91.176(b)(3)(i) now requires the pilot to maintain the enhanced flight visibility from descent below MDA or DA/DH until touchdown. Therefore, at 100 feet above the TDZE and below, a pilot must meet the requirements of § 91.176(b)(3)(i) and (iii) in order to continue to a landing. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 c. Visual References for Rollout As proposed in the NPRM, § 91.176(a)(3) specifies visibility and visual reference requirements for EFVS operations below the authorized DA/DH and for EFVS operations below 100 feet above the TDZE. A couple of commenters raised concerns regarding the lack of visibility and visual reference requirements for rollout during an EFVS operation. Thales proposed that the FAA either clarify the rollout requirements or add visibility and visual reference requirements to the regulations. Sierra Nevada Corporation contended that the required visual references specified in § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) are typically behind the aircraft by the time the aircraft slows to a safe taxi speed. It asserted that the FAA should specify an additional set of visual references for rollout, such as those in RTCA DO–341, Section 3.1.3.4, which includes visual references for rollout, such as the centerline lights or markings and the runway edge lights or markings, if installed and serviceable, or other visual references which accurately 34 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, NPRM, 68 FR 6802, 6805 (Feb. 10, 2003). 35 Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gary Thomey (Sept. 10, 2010); see Takeoff and Landing Minimums, 46 FR 2280, 2282 (Jan. 8 1981) (revising the requirement, then codified as § 91.116, to ‘‘make it clear that the pilot must have this flight visibility from descent below MDA or DH until touchdown’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 indicate the runway edges and the runway centerline. The FAA finds it unnecessary to specify visual references for rollout by regulation because the operating rules require sufficient forward visibility in order to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, and an applicant must demonstrate that the EFVS can safely perform the rollout task during the equipment certification process. Under § 91.176(a), a pilot must determine that the enhanced flight visibility observed by using an EFVS is not less than what is prescribed in the IAP before descending below DA/DH to touchdown. This requirement in addition to the visibility and visual reference requirements specified in § 91.176(a)(3) ensures that sufficient forward visibility exists for the pilot to safely conduct the approach, landing, and rollout. Furthermore, during the certification flight test, an applicant will have to demonstrate that he or she can use the EFVS to safely perform rollout tasks. Additionally, the FAA may include visibility and visual reference requirements for rollout in an operator’s authorization to conduct EFVS operations, if necessary. The FAA notes that AC 20–167A provides a means of compliance for an EFVS to obtain airworthiness approval and contains guidance applicable to the evaluation of EFVS performance during rollout to a safe taxi speed. of this type could be useful in conditions of below Category II weather or used in locations where approach lighting systems are not possible, such as when an airport is surrounded by water. The commenter recommended that the FAA revise the visual reference language in § 91.176 to permit the use of emitter technologies in addition to the visual references currently specified. While emitters that might be interoperable with EFVS sensor technologies could be implemented as an alternative or supplement to traditional lighting systems or visual aid components, specifying a performance based equivalent for light components is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that §§ 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) do not prohibit the use of emitter technologies to facilitate the identification of the required visual references. d. Controlling Runway Visual Range (RVR) Values Section 91.176 does not specify which runway visual range (RVR) values are controlling for operational purposes. Therefore, Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to clarify whether the touchdown zone, mid, or rollout RVR is controlling when more than one RVR value is provided for the runway of intended landing. The FAA will specify which RVR values are controlling for operational purposes in an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations. The FAA is also providing guidance on this topic in AC 90–106A. D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE (§ 91.176(b)) e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative Visual Aids An individual commented that the NPRM addresses EFVS operations in a performance-based manner but provides no performance-based equivalent for light components. The commenter stated that emitters of various types that might be interoperable with EFVS sensor technologies could be implemented as an alternative or supplement to traditional lighting systems or visual aid components. The commenter further stated that emitters PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility Requirements of §§ 91.155 and 91.157 During Rotorcraft Operations HAI commented that the FAA should permit rotorcraft to use EFVS to provide the required visibility necessary to operate under §§ 91.155 and 91.157. The FAA is not adopting this suggestion because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to permit such operations and others have not had an opportunity to comment. 1. Methods for Conducting Approaches During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE Section 91.176(b) contains the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. These requirements were previously located in § 91.175(l) and (m). A commenter noted that § 91.176(b) does not contain a regulatory requirement to use vertical guidance to fly a non-precision approach and that, upon meeting the visual reference requirements, a pilot could descend immediately and as rapidly as desired to 100 feet above the TDZE rather than descend along a vertically guided continuous descent profile. The commenter, therefore, recommended that § 91.176(b) restrict EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE to approaches that have approved vertical guidance. The commenter also noted that § 91.176 does not require descent along an obstacle-free path and that EFVS was not designed to detect obstacles, but it is important for a pilot to ensure that a descent is accomplished E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations along a path known to be obstacle-free, such as by using another approach to the same runway that has a DA, or by using a VASI, PAPI, or other information. The commenter therefore recommended that proposed § 91.176(b)(2)(iii) require the aircraft to be continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made along an obstacle-free path at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers. Central Management Services shared similar concerns. It noted that, while it doubted any Part 141 or Part 142 facility advocated the ‘‘dive and drive’’ method for conducting straight-in, non-precision approaches, the EFVS rule does not prohibit it, and therefore recommended that the FAA do so in § 91.176. The FAA finds that these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose these restrictions to § 91.176(b); therefore, other persons did not have an opportunity to comment. Additionally, persons have been conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE safely for over 12 years under § 91.175(l) and (m), which did not contain such restrictions.36 AC 90–106A provides guidance on how to safely conduct EFVS operations on approaches with an MDA using straight-in landing minimums. E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, and Refresher Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66) The FAA has reorganized the pilot requirements proposed in §§ 61.31 and 61.57 and consolidated them in new § 61.66. Section 61.66 contains the EFVS ground and flight training requirements, which were proposed as § 61.31(l), and the EFVS recent flight experience requirements, which were 90145 proposed as § 61.57(h) and (i).37 The FAA is consolidating the EFVS training requirements with the EFVS recent flight experience requirements into a single section for organizational clarity. The FAA believes that consolidating these requirements into a single new section in part 61, which is comprised solely of the EFVS pilot requirements, will help facilitate compliance with the regulations by making them more accessible and comprehensible to pilots. The FAA has also made modifications to these requirements as a result of comments and as a result of the FAA’s own continued review of the proposal, which this section will discuss in detail below. The following table outlines each requirement, its previously proposed section in the NPRM, its corresponding section in new § 61.66, and a summary of the significant changes from the proposal. Requirement NPRM Final rule Change from NPRM Ground Training ................... Proposed § 61.31(l)(1) ....... § 61.66(a)(1) ...................... Ground Training Subjects .... Proposed § 61.31(l)(2)(i)– (vii). § 61.66(a)(2)(i)–(viii) .......... Flight Training ...................... Proposed § 61.31(l)(3) ....... § 61.66(b)(1) ...................... Flight Training Tasks ........... Proposed § 61.31(l)(4)(i)– (viii). Proposed § 61.31(l)(6) ....... § 61.66(b)(2)(i)–(viii) .......... Clarifies that a person must receive the ground training from an authorized training provider under an FAA approved training program. Clarifies that the EFVS ground training must be appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. Adds the following ground training subject: EFVS sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information and flight symbology. Clarifies that a person must receive the flight training from an authorized training provider under an FAA approved training program. Clarifies that the EFVS flight training must be provided in the category of aircraft for the EFVS operation to be conducted. No significant changes from NPRM. § 61.66(c) ........................... Recent Flight Experience: EFVS. Proposed § 61.57(h) .......... § 61.66(d) ........................... EFVS Refresher Training .... Proposed § 61.57(i) ........... § 61.66(e)(1) ...................... Individuals who may conduct EFVS Refresher Training. Military Pilots and Former Military Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. Proposed § 61.57(i)(2) ....... § 61.66(e)(2) ...................... ............................................ § 61.66(f) ............................ mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Supplementary EFVS Training. 36 In the 2004 EFVS final rule, ‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision Systems,’’ 69 FR at 1625 (Jan. 9, 2004), the FAA explained that the obstacle risk for a nonprecision approach using EFVS is significantly mitigated by only permitting EFVS operations on VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 Clarifies that supplementary EFVS training, previously proposed as differences training, consists of both ground and flight training. Clarifies that a person must receive supplemental EFVS training in the category of aircraft for the EFVS operation to be conducted. No longer permits a pilot to receive a proficiency check in lieu of supplementary EFVS training. Clarifies that the EFVS recent flight experience requirements must be obtained in the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. Calls the mechanism by which a person reestablishes EFVS currency a ‘‘refresher course’’ rather than a ‘‘proficiency check.’’ Provides pilots with an additional 6 months to satisfy the EFVS recent flight experience requirements. Requires EFVS refresher training to be conducted by an authorized training provider. Adds a new paragraph that specifically addresses military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. straight-in approaches. The FAA further noted that a pilot could maintain obstacle clearance by using the recommended procedures to fly a straight-in instrument approach procedure with an MDA, and by using the FPV cue and FPARC displayed by the PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 EFVS to monitor and maintain the desired vertical path when operating below the MDA. 37 As discussed in section III.E.2, § 61.66(e) clarifies the proficiency check requirements that were proposed in § 61.57(i). E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90146 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Requirement NPRM Final rule Change from NPRM Use of Full Flight Simulators (FFS). Proposed § 61.31(l)(5) ....... Proposed § 61.57(h)(2) Proposed § 61.57(i) § 61.66(g) ........................... Grandfather clause and compliance date for persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii) ... § 61.66(h)(4) § 91.176(b)(4) Creates a new paragraph, which contains the requirements for using a FFS to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements. Clarifies that each FFS must be qualified and maintained in accordance with part 60, or be a previously qualified device, as permitted in accordance with § 60.17. Clarifies that each FFS must be approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers. Creates two provisions for clarity. Section 61.66(h)(4) contains the grandfather clause, and § 91.176(b)(4) contains the compliance date. 1. Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(a), (b) and (c)) mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Under § 61.66(a) and (b), no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation as specified in § 91.176(a) or (b) unless that person has received and logged ground and flight training for the EFVS operation under a training program 38 approved by the Administrator and obtained a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the ground and flight training. Section 61.66(a) also requires a person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member (who does not manipulate the controls) during an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout to comply with the ground training requirements in paragraph (a). EFVS training must include ground training on the subjects set forth in § 61.66(a)(2) and flight training on the tasks set forth in § 61.66(b)(2). Consistent with the proposal, under the final rule, the Administrator may approve a training program that includes ground and flight training for one EFVS operation (e.g., § 91.176(a) or (b)) or both EFVS operations (§ 91.176(a) and (b)). If a person receives training and an endorsement for only one EFVS operation in § 91.176, then seeks to conduct an additional EFVS operation for which that person has not received training, § 61.66(c) requires that person to receive ground and flight training and 38 Under part 121 and part 135, the term ‘‘training program’’ is a broad term that encompasses all curriculums in the air carrier’s approved training program. Therefore, part 119 certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135 would not have an EFVS training program; they would have an EFVS training curriculum as part of their approved training program. For purposes of part 119 certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135, the term ‘‘training program’’ in § 61.66 means training curriculum. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 an endorsement appropriate to the additional EFVS operation to be conducted. AC 61–65 will contain sample endorsements for use by authorized training providers when endorsing logbooks or training records pursuant to § 61.66(a)(1), (b)(1) and (c)(2). The training requirements in new § 61.66(a), (b), and (c) differ slightly from what was proposed in the NPRM as a result of comments and revisions, which are discussed in more detail below. a. Separate Training for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE and EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout Dassault Aviation commented that it favors separate training for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. It also commented that training for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout should automatically include training for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA will not require separate training programs for the two types of EFVS operations, nor will it require training for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to automatically include training for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA has adopted ground and flight training requirements with sufficient flexibility to achieve both the desired safety benefits and training efficiencies. While the rule does not require separate training for the two types of EFVS operations, the FAA notes that the training must address the operations the EFVS operator is authorized to conduct. Under certain circumstances, an operator authorized to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout might find it necessary to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. For example, if the pilot monitoring display is inoperative, the flightcrew PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 may not conduct an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout, but they may conduct an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE provided they meet all applicable regulatory requirements, including training to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, an operator may elect for its pilots to receive training for both types of EFVS operations. b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training A couple of commenters raised concerns about aircraft-specific EFVS training. GAMA commented that proposed § 61.31 should specifically enable a pilot who is trained in EFVS operations on one airplane model to be EFVS-qualified on multiple airplane types. GAMA noted that FAA FSBs have authorized pilots trained on one airplane model for EFVS to be EFVSqualified on another airplane, such as on the Falcon 900 and Falcon 2000. GAMA further noted that proposed § 61.31 did not recognize the FSB credit that currently exists. Rockwell Collins commented that it assumed the training proposed by the FAA could be performed during ground/simulator training using a ‘‘generic’’ aircraft type, given that initial EFVS training includes an introduction to EFVS image characteristics, such as infrared-based sensor imagery, determining EFVS-equivalent visibility, image artifacts, and other items. It asked whether training could carry over to multiple aircraft types with similar EFVS installations and noted that this could allow training companies to provide generic training packages. Section 61.66, proposed as § 61.31, does not reflect GAMA’s request because § 61.66(a) and (b) do not require a pilot to receive training on each specific combination of EFVS and aircraft model for which the pilot is qualified to fly. Accordingly, as Rockwell Collins requested, training obtained pursuant to § 61.66 may carry E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations over to multiple aircraft types with similar EFVS installations. The intent of § 61.66 is to establish minimum standards for a broad range of operators who may be operating various types of aircraft and EFVS equipment. The FAA has revised the language in § 61.66, however, to make clear that the training and endorsements for EFVS operations must be specific to category of aircraft. This requirement is consistent with the language proposed in § 61.57(i) requiring an EFVS proficiency check to be accomplished in the category of aircraft for the EFVS privilege sought. In addition to the training requirements of part 61, an operator must comply with any training requirements specified in the part under which the operator conducts operations. Additionally, an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations may contain specific training requirements. The FAA notes that this rule provides operators with the flexibility to develop training programs that address their specific operational requirements. Furthermore, for part 121, 135, and 91 subpart K operators, the FAA requires that a pilot obtain training in the EFVS-equipped aircraft in which the pilot expects to conduct operations, and that an operator’s approved training program address training and proficiency for each specific combination of EFVS and aircraft model applicable to that operator and its EFVS operations. FSB reports also provide recommendations for training, checking, currency, recent flight experience, and special emphasis areas. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an EFVS in Flight Operations The Aerospace Medical Association commented that during B–787 training, one of their members experienced a habituation period when utilizing the HUD as a primary flight display and the instrument panel as secondary information. It believes the FAA should consider a similar habituation period for EFVS. The commenter stated that the habituation period should provide pilots with enough time to become accustomed to EFVS prior to flying solo or during actual instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). It asserted that use of simulators should also be considered for training. The FAA believes that the time necessary to meet the EFVS training requirements will provide pilots with the necessary habituation period. Furthermore, § 61.66(g) already states that a pilot may use a level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with a daylight visual display and an VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 EFVS to meet the flight training requirements of § 61.66(b). Boeing commented that § 61.31(l) already exists and contains the exceptions to the requirement for a type rating. Boeing recommended that the FAA move the existing regulations in § 61.31(l) to § 61.31(m) and use § 61.31(l) for the proposed additional training required for EFVS operations. Boeing further stated that this will prevent having two different sections with the same number. This revision is unnecessary because the FAA is adopting new § 61.66 instead of proposed § 61.31. d. Revisions To Clarify Training Requirements in § 61.66(a), (b) and (c) Section 61.66(a), (b), and (c) now require pilots to receive EFVS ground, flight, and supplementary training from an ‘‘authorized training provider’’ under an FAA approved training program.39 The FAA is using the term ‘‘authorized training provider,’’ rather than ‘‘authorized instructor’’ as proposed in the NPRM, to underscore that all EFVS training must be accomplished in accordance with an FAA approved training program under 14 CFR parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121, 125, 135, 141, or 142. This revision is consistent with the NPRM, which explained that the FAA would require persons to receive EFVS training under an FAA approved training program to ensure that pilots are trained and tested to a specific standard and that the training program content supports the EFVS operation to be conducted. Because the proposed rule always intended for EFVS training to take place under an approved training program, the only authorized instructors would be those instructors working for training providers with approved training programs, such as instructors employed by part 141 pilot schools, part 142 training centers, and part 119 certificate holders. While an FAA approved training program is not required under part 125, § 61.66 requires a part 125 operator to accomplish EFVS training in accordance with an FAA approved training program. A part 125 operator may accomplish § 61.66 EFVS training in accordance with an FAA approved training program offered at a part 141 pilot school or a part 142 training center.40 Alternatively, a part 125 39 Unless otherwise excepted in § 61.66(h), the training requirements in § 61.66(a), (b), and (c) apply to any pilot conducting EFVS operations under 14 CFR 91.176, including pilots conducting operations under part 91, part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, or part 135. 40 However, based on the special rules in § 125.296, a part 125 operator may not use a part PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90147 operator may submit an EFVS training program to the FAA for approval. Under part 141, the FAA may approve an EFVS training course in accordance with § 141.11 and appendix K to part 141, paragraph 9, Special Operations Course, which contains the minimum curriculum requirements for both aeronautical knowledge and flight training pertaining to special operations courses. A special operations course for EFVS must also meet the applicable parts of FAA regulations that pertain to that special operations course. Accordingly, an EFVS training course must meet the requirements of § 61.66 in addition to the minimum curriculum requirements in appendix K to part 141. Because training programs already exist for persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, there is already a cadre of training instructors qualified to administer training on the subjects and tasks set forth in § 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) that are applicable to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. As a result of this final rule, new training programs for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout will be developed. Section 61.66 requires persons to obtain EFVS training from an authorized training provider under an FAA approved training program. However, before persons can receive training on EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout from an authorized training provider, there must first be a cadre of training instructors qualified and authorized to administer the training. The FAA recognizes that there will be an initial period when training providers may provide training and evaluation without meeting certain qualification requirements in order to establish an initial cadre of instructors. AC 90–106A contains the FAA’s policy for initiating and building a cadre of authorized training instructors qualified to administer training on EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA added language to § 61.66(a)(1) and (b)(1) to make clear that the ground and flight training for EFVS operations, and the respective endorsements, must be specific to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. It has always been the FAA’s intent to require the EFVS training to be category specific. This requirement is consistent with the language proposed in § 61.57(i) requiring an EFVS proficiency check to be accomplished in the category of aircraft for the EFVS privilege sought. 141 pilot school to meet training, testing, or checking requirements under part 125. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 The FAA is reorganizing the supplementary EFVS training requirements in § 61.66(c) (proposed as differences training) to be more consistent with § 61.66(a) and (b).41 Accordingly, § 61.66(c)(1) requires a person to receive and log the ground and flight training specified in § 61.66(a) and (b) under an FAA approved training program appropriate to the EFVS operation to be conducted, and § 61.66(c)(2) requires that person to obtain a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying the person is proficient in the use of EFVS for the EFVS operations to be conducted. These revisions are consistent with proposed § 61.31(l)(6)(i), which would have required the person to obtain the flight training and endorsement specified in § 61.66(b) appropriate to the additional EFVS operations to be conducted. The FAA is requiring the supplemental EFVS training in § 61.66(c) to consist of ground and flight training on the subjects and tasks specified in (a)(2) and (b)(2) appropriate to the additional EFVS operation to be conducted, as opposed to only flight training which was what the NPRM proposed in § 61.31(l)(6). This change to the regulatory text is consistent with the discussion in the NPRM,42 where the FAA explained that a pilot trained to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE would not be required to complete the full training program applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout if he or she later decided to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Instead, he or she would be required to complete only that portion of the full training program addressing the differences between the two operations. A full training program consists of both ground and flight training. The FAA therefore intended the supplemental EFVS training to consist of both ground and flight training. The FAA inadvertently omitted ground training, however, in its proposed regulatory text. The FAA is 41 In the NPRM, the FAA described the additional EFVS training requirements in proposed § 61.31(l)(6) as differences training. Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided not to use the term ‘‘differences training’’ because it is a term of art used by air carriers, which may cause confusion in the context of additional EFVS training. Under part 121 subpart N and part 135 subpart H, differences training is required if a flightcrew member will serve on a variation of a particular aircraft type that has pertinent differences from the base aircraft type. To avoid confusion, the FAA is describing the additional EFVS training requirements as ‘‘supplementary EFVS training.’’ 42 ‘‘Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems.’’ 78 FR at 34943 (June 11, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 adding ground training to § 61.66(c) to clarify that supplemental EFVS training includes ground training on the subjects specified in § 61.66(a)(2) in addition to flight training on the tasks specified in § 61.66(b)(2) appropriate to the additional EFVS operation to be conducted. The FAA is also requiring the supplemental EFVS training to be specific to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege, which is consistent with the training requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b) and with the recent flight experience and refresher training requirements in § 61.66(d) and (e). The FAA is not permitting a person to receive a proficiency check in lieu of the supplemental EFVS training, as originally proposed in § 61.31(l)(6)(ii). Nor is the FAA permitting a person to receive a proficiency check in lieu of the initial ground and flight training, as originally proposed in § 61.31(l)(7). The FAA is not adopting these proposed proficiency checks because they cannot be applied as a practical matter and they are inconsistent with the FAA’s reasons for establishing EFVS training requirements. During a proficiency check, a pilot must satisfactorily perform certain flight tasks. Prior to being checked on the flight tasks, a pilot must first receive training on the flight tasks. It is therefore impractical to permit a proficiency check on the tasks listed in § 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of initial training on those tasks. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the FAA, EFVS manufacturers, and operators of EFVSequipped aircraft have all recognized the need for specialized training in the use of EFVS. The FAA proposed to establish EFVS training requirements to ensure that pilots meet minimum requirements to operate EFVS equipment, that they are trained and tested to a standard, and that an appropriate level of public safety is maintained. The FAA now recognizes that proposed § 61.31(l)(6) and (l)(7) would have permitted a pilot who is untrained and inexperienced with the use of EFVS to receive a proficiency check on the tasks set forth in § 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of receiving the initial training on those tasks. This was not the FAA’s intent as such a requirement would contravene the FAA’s reasons for establishing EFVS training requirements. The FAA notes, however, that pilots who have satisfactorily completed training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE prior to this final rule will not be required to receive duplicative training under § 61.66(a) and (b). Instead, those pilots will be given credit for their PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 previously obtained training pursuant to § 61.66(h)(4), which is discussed in more detail below. The FAA is also revising § 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2)(vii) as a result of a comment raised by GAMA. GAMA recommended that the FAA align the terminology in proposed § 61.31(l)(4)(vii) with the terminology ‘‘EFVS image,’’ ‘‘EFVS sensor imagery,’’ and ‘‘flight information and flight symbology,’’ used in § 91.176. Sections 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) and (a)(1)(i)(E) now use the phrase ‘‘aircraft flight information and flight symbology,’’ rather than ‘‘aircraft flight symbology.’’ The FAA agrees with GAMA that the terminology should be consistent in part 61. The FAA is therefore revising § 61.66(b)(2)(vii), previously proposed as § 61.31(l)(4)(vii), to include a reference to required aircraft flight information and flight symbology, as used in § 91.176. For consistency, the FAA is also revising § 61.66(a)(2), previously proposed as § 61.31(l)(2), by adding new paragraph (ii) to include EFVS sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information and flight symbology as subjects of ground training for EFVS operations. Additionally, the FAA is revising § 61.66(a)(2)(i) to read ‘‘Airplane Flight Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations’’ instead of ‘‘AFM limitations’’ because EFVS operations apply to both airplanes and rotorcraft. The reference to ‘‘Airplane Flight Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations’’ includes the limitations found in the Airplane Flight Manual Supplement or Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement as well as those found in the AFM or RFM. The FAA is also revising certain terms and concepts in § 61.66 to be consistent with current regulations, including revisions resulting from several rulemaking actions that were published after the EFVS proposal was published.43 The FAA is replacing the terminology ‘‘other endorsement’’ with ‘‘training record endorsement’’ in § 61.66(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and (c)(2) for consistency with terminology used in other sections of part 61. 43 These rulemaking actions include the final rules ‘‘Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations,’’ 78 FR 42374 (Jul. 15, 2013), ‘‘Certified Flight Instructor Flight Reviews; Recent Pilot in Command Experience; Airmen Online Services,’’ 78 FR 56828 (Sept. 16, 2013), and ‘‘Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,’’ 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013). E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS Refresher Training for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(d) and (e)) Section 61.66(d) requires a person to perform and log six instrument approaches as the sole manipulator of the controls using an EFVS under any weather conditions in the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. In order to manipulate the controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation, these six instrument approaches must be accomplished within six calendar months preceding the month of the flight. These instrument approaches may be performed in either day or night conditions. One approach must terminate in a full stop landing. For a person authorized to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, that person must conduct the full stop landing using the EFVS. These requirements were previously proposed in § 61.57(h). The FAA is adopting these requirements in new § 61.66(d) with two substantive changes. First, the FAA is clarifying that recent flight experience may be performed in either day or night conditions. Second, to be consistent with the requirement originally proposed for proficiency checks in § 61.57(i), the FAA is clarifying that recent flight experience must be performed in the same category of aircraft for which the pilot holds EFVS privileges under § 61.66(a) and (b). Section 61.66(e) requires a person who has failed to meet the recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) for more than six calendar months to reestablish EFVS currency only by satisfactorily completing an approved EFVS refresher course in the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. The EFVS refresher course must consist of the subjects and tasks specified in § 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted. Section 61.66(e) differs from the proposal in the NPRM in that it more closely resembles the instrument proficiency check requirements in § 61.57(d) and rather than calling the mechanism by which a person reestablishes EFVS currency a proficiency check, the FAA is calling it a refresher course. In the NPRM, proposed § 61.57(i) would have required a person who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements in proposed § 61.57(h) to pass an EFVS proficiency check to act as PIC in an EFVS operation or to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation. However, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 discussion of proposed § 61.57(i) in the NPRM obscured the proposed requirement by stating that a person acting as PIC or a person manipulating the controls of an aircraft in an EFVS operation would either have been required to meet the proposed EFVS recent flight experience requirements or pass an EFVS proficiency check. Because of the statement in the NPRM, proposed § 61.57(i) could have been interpreted one of two ways. Proposed § 61.57(i) could have meant that a pilot who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements of proposed § 61.57(h) could have reestablished EFVS currency only by completing an EFVS proficiency check. Alternatively, proposed § 61.57(i) could have meant that a pilot who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements in § 61.57(h) could have reestablished EFVS currency by either: (1) Satisfying the EFVS recent flight experience requirements in proposed § 61.57(h); or (2) completing an EFVS proficiency check pursuant to § 61.57(i). The FAA’s intent was to require a person who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements to reestablish EFVS currency only by completing an EFVS proficiency check, similar to the instrument proficiency check requirements in § 61.57(d). Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided that the term proficiency check is inappropriate in the context of reestablishing EFVS currency. Unlike an instrument proficiency check, which is based on the instrument practical test standards, an EFVS proficiency check would not have been based on any standards. Rather, an EFVS proficiency check would have consisted of the training tasks specified in proposed § 61.31(l). Because proposed § 61.57(h) would have resulted in a person receiving additional training rather than a proficiency check based on performance standards, the FAA has decided to call it an EFVS refresher course. Additionally, because proposed § 61.57(h) would have required the additional training to consist of the tasks in proposed § 61.31(l), which proposed both ground and flight training, the FAA is requiring the EFVS refresher course to consist of the ground subjects and the flight tasks specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) as applicable to the EFVS operation to be conducted. To avoid ambiguity, the FAA is restructuring § 61.66(e) to more closely resemble the language for instrument recent flight experience in § 61.57(d) with respect to the six calendar month timeframe. The FAA believes that using language from § 61.57(d), which pilots PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90149 are already familiar with, will better inform pilots on how to remain current for EFVS operations under § 61.66. Accordingly, under new § 61.66(e), if a person has failed to meet the EFVS experience requirements of § 61.66(d) for more than six calendar months— meaning it has been more than six months since the person was last current to perform an EFVS operation, that person may reestablish EFVS currency only by satisfactorily completing an EFVS refresher course pursuant to § 61.66(e). The FAA notes that the six calendar month period described in § 61.66(d) begins when a pilot satisfactorily completes the ground and flight training and obtains the necessary endorsements under § 61.66(a) and (b).44 Section 61.66(e) contains a substantive change from what was proposed in that it provides a six-month grace period for pilots who have failed to maintain the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). The proposed regulatory text would have required a pilot to receive an EFVS proficiency check if he or she had not performed and logged the tasks specified in § 61.66(d) within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight. Under new § 61.66(e), however, a pilot may fail to maintain EFVS currency for up to 6 calendar months without having to obtain refresher training. As with instrument recent flight experience, a pilot has an additional 6 calendar months to complete the recent EFVS flight experience tasks specified in § 61.66(d) without having to take an EFVS refresher course to reestablish his or her EFVS privileges.45 In other words, a pilot has six months from the date that he or she was last current to conduct EFVS operations to perform the EFVS 44 See Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Joshua Wynne from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Aug. 1, 2008) (explaining that the six calendar month period described in § 61.57(c) begins when a pilot successfully completes his or her practical test). ‘‘By passing the practical test, the pilot has demonstrated his or her instrument proficiency.’’ Id. Similarly, the six calendar month period described in § 61.66(d) begins when a pilot successfully completes the EFVS training and obtains the necessary endorsements. 45 See ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification; Technical Amendment,’’ 76 FR 78141, 78142 (Dec. 16, 2011) (‘‘[A] pilot who has failed to maintain instrument currency for more than six calendar months may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for visual flight rules (VFR) until completing an instrument proficiency check. A pilot whose instrument currency has been lapsed for less than six months may continue to reestablish instrument currency by performing the tasks and maneuvers required in [§ 61.57(c)].’’) E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90150 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 recent flight experience required by § 61.66(d), which may be accomplished in any weather conditions.46 If a pilot fails to maintain EFVS currency for more than 6 calendar months, however, that pilot may not manipulate the controls or act as PIC of an aircraft during an EFVS operation until he or she completes an EFVS refresher course. The FAA never intended the requirements of § 61.66(d) to replace the instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c). In fact, the instrument experience requirements specified in § 61.57(c) lay the foundation for conducting safe EFVS operations by ensuring pilots are proficient in conducting instrument approach procedures. The FAA structured § 61.66(d) to enable pilots to satisfy both the instrument experience requirements and the EFVS operating experience requirements during the same flight or series of flights. For example, a person performing an EFVS operation on an instrument approach under IMC may be able to log that instrument approach under § 61.57(c) provided he or she is operating the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments. Under certain conditions, the pilot may have to remove the EFVS sensor image for a portion of the approach in order to operate the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments. In weather conditions that exceed the sensor’s capabilities, such as clouds, dense fog, or heavy rain, the pilot may not have to remove the EFVS sensor image if it provides no visual advantage over that of natural vision. However, a person performing an instrument approach using EFVS under VMC would not be able to log that approach under § 61.57(c), unless that person were using a HUD-compatible view limiting device, which enabled the person to perform the approach solely by reference to the instruments. A person would be required to comply with the safety pilot requirements in § 91.109(c) if that person performs an instrument approach with an EFVS in simulated weather conditions using a view limiting device. 46 During this six-month grace period, a person may not act as PIC of an EFVS operation but may manipulate the controls under the supervision of a PIC properly qualified and current for the purpose of reestablishing currency. See Legal Interpretation, Letter to Joseph P. Carr from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 7, 1984) (discussing the second six-month period as it pertains to a pilot regaining his or her instrument currency and noting that, during this second sixmonth period, a pilot is prohibited from acting as PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience Boeing commented that proposed § 61.57(h)(1) and (h)(2)(i) should specify that persons should obtain recent flight experience and proficiency checks using the same type of EFVS and in the same category and type of aircraft, if appropriate. Boeing stated that characteristics and controls may be different among different EFVS installations, and that there may be differences in the sensor position and out-the-window view among different airplanes of the same category, such as an ERJ–170 and a Boeing B747. While it is unclear whether Boeing is referring to category, class, and type as defined in § 1.1, the FAA has decided against requiring persons to obtain recent flight experience using the same type of EFVS in the same category, class, and type of aircraft. It believes that imposing such requirements would be unreasonable. The FAA has decided, however, to require persons to obtain recent flight experience using an EFVS in the same category of aircraft because the characteristics and controls of different categories of aircraft, such as rotorcraft and airplane, may be significantly different. From a practical perspective, operators train pilots on the specific equipment they will fly in accordance with their approved training programs. The FAA has decided to establish minimum standards in § 61.66(d) and (e), which apply to operators who may be operating a broad range of aircraft and EFVS equipment. The FAA recommends, however, that persons obtain recent flight experience using EFVS-equipped aircraft in which the pilot expects to conduct operations. The FAA also recommends that operators address training and proficiency for each specific combination of EFVS and aircraft model in their approved training programs. FSB reports also provide recommendations for training, checking, currency, recent flight experience, and special emphasis areas. Boeing also asked the FAA for clarification about whether contact and visual approaches under IFR can satisfy the requirement for recent flight experience using EFVS. The FAA notes that although persons may conduct contact approaches and visual approaches under instrument flight rules, these approaches are not instrument approach procedures, as defined in § 1.1. Therefore, persons cannot use these approaches to meet the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 4. Persons Authorized To Conduct EFVS Refresher Training Section 61.66(e)(2) lists the persons authorized to conduct EFVS refresher training. This list differs from the proposed list of persons authorized to conduct EFVS proficiency checks in § 61.57(i) based on comments from Boeing and based on the FAA’s own review of the proposal. More specifically, the FAA is using the term ‘‘authorized training provider’’ in paragraph (e)(2) rather than the proposed term ‘‘authorized instructor’’ as a result of Boeing’s comment, and the FAA is not adopting proposed § 61.57(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(5). Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an EFVS refresher course to be conducted by an authorized training provider who meets the training and recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66. This requirement differs from what was proposed in § 61.57(i)(4), which would have allowed authorized instructors to perform EFVS proficiency checks.47 The FAA’s description of authorized instructor in proposed § 61.57(i)(4) was confusing as evident from Boeing’s comment. Boeing commented that the FAA uses different descriptions for instructors who provide initial training under proposed § 61.31(l) and those who provide proficiency checks under proposed § 61.57(i). It recommended that the FAA revise proposed § 61.57(i) to make it parallel proposed § 61.31(l), which uses the term ‘‘authorized instructor’’ to describe those who are qualified to provide initial training. As previously discussed, the FAA is using the term ‘‘authorized training provider,’’ rather than the proposed term ‘‘authorized instructor,’’ in § 61.66(a) and (b) to clarify that all EFVS training must be accomplished in accordance with an FAA approved training program under 14 CFR parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121, 125, 135, 141, or 142. The FAA agrees with Boeing that the FAA should use the same description for instructors who provide initial training under § 61.66(a) and (b) and for instructors who provide EFVS refresher training under § 61.66(e). Accordingly, the FAA is using the term ‘‘authorized training provider’’ in § 61.66(e)(2). Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an authorized training provider to meet the training requirements of § 61.66 and, if conducting EFVS operations in an aircraft during the course of refresher training, the recent flight experience 47 As explained above, the proposed EFVS proficiency check is now called EFVS refresher training. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 requirements of § 61.66.48 This requirement is consistent with the NPRM because proposed § 61.57(i)(4) would have required the authorized instructor to meet the training requirements for EFVS operations specified in proposed § 61.31(l) and, if conducting EFVS operations in an aircraft, meet the recent flight experience requirements of proposed § 61.57. A person may receive an EFVS refresher course from an authorized training provider under 14 CFR parts 141 or 142.49 Therefore, § 61.66(e)(2) encompasses instructors under parts 141 and 142.50 The FAA finds it unnecessary to adopt proposed § 61.57(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(5). The FAA is not adopting proposed § 61.57(i)(1), which would have allowed FAA inspectors or designated examiners to conduct EFVS proficiency checks, because a person cannot obtain EFVS refresher training from an FAA inspector or designated examiner. The FAA is not adopting proposed § 61.57(i)(2), which would have allowed persons who are authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to perform EFVS proficiency checks to conduct EFVS proficiency checks under § 61.66(e), previously proposed as § 61.57(i), provided the person being administered the check was also a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead, the FAA has decided to create a new paragraph, § 61.66(f), which solely addresses U.S. military pilots and former U.S. military pilots and which clarifies that EFVS proficiency checks administered in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66(d). This paragraph is discussed in more detail below. The FAA is not adopting proposed § 61.57(i)(3), which would have permitted company check pilots who are authorized to perform EFVS proficiency checks under parts 121, 125, or 135, or subpart K of part 91, to administer EFVS proficiency checks to pilots who are employed by the operator 48 An EFVS operation is defined as an operation in which visibility conditions require the use of EFVS. If an authorized training provider will be conducting an EFVS operation in an aircraft during the course of EFVS refresher training, that authorized training provider must be EFVS current in accordance with § 61.66(d) and (e). 49 Section 61.66(e) does not apply to operators under parts 91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 because § 61.66(h)(3) excepts these operators from the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). 50 Section 61.66(e) also enables a person to receive an EFVS refresher course from an authorized training provider under part 61. The FAA is in the process of developing guidance to approve training programs conducted under part 61. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 or fractional ownership program manager. The FAA finds it impractical to include company check pilots in the list of persons authorized to administer EFVS refresher training. The FAA also finds it unnecessary to include persons authorized to administer EFVS training under parts 121, 125, 135, or part 91 subpart K in the list of persons authorized to administer EFVS refresher training because, as explained in section III.E.8.c.of this preamble, § 61.66(h)(3) excepts parts 121, 125 (including part 125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart K pilots from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). Rather than meeting recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d), or reestablishing EFVS currency under § 61.66(e), pilots conducting EFVS operations for part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135 operators will be checked on EFVS tasks and maneuvers under their respective parts. Boeing commented that proposed § 61.57(i)(3) should have included contract pilots of an operator or fractional ownership program manager because some operators use contract pilots and instructors for training. While the FAA agrees with Boeing’s comment, the FAA’s decision to no longer adopt proposed § 61.57(i)(3) obviates addressing Boeing’s concern. The FAA is not adopting proposed § 61.57(i)(5), which would have permitted persons to perform EFVS proficiency checks if they were approved by the FAA to perform EFVS proficiency checks, as unnecessary because § 61.66(e)(2) already allows persons to provide EFVS refresher training if they are authorized by the Administrator to do so. 5. Revisions to § 61.57 The FAA is revising certain terms and concepts in § 61.57. The FAA is revising § 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3) to correct drafting errors that occurred in a previous rulemaking. A drafting error occurred in paragraph (e)(2), which stated ‘‘when the pilot is engaged in a flight operation under parts 91 and 121 for that certificate holder.’’ A drafting error also occurred in paragraph (e)(3), which said ‘‘when the pilot is engaged in a flight operation under parts 91 and 135 for that certificate holder.’’ The FAA is revising ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ to state ‘‘parts 91 or 121’’ and ‘‘parts 91 or 135,’’ respectively. The FAA is also revising § 61.57(e)(2) to remove a reference to § 121.435, which is currently a reserved section PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90151 and has contained no requirements since March 12, 2014.51 6. Military Pilots and Former Military Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces (§ 61.66(f)) The FAA is creating a new paragraph, § 61.66(f), which solely addresses military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. This new paragraph clarifies the regulations applicable to these pilots. Under § 61.66(f), a military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces is excepted from the ground and flight training requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b) if he or she can document satisfactory completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations by the U.S. Armed Forces. This requirement differs from the NPRM, where the FAA proposed to permit EFVS proficiency checks administered in the U.S. Armed Forces in lieu of the EFVS ground and flight training requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b). A pilot obtains a proficiency check in the U.S. Armed Forces after receiving the required ground and flight training. Therefore, the FAA has decided to accept documentation of EFVS ground and flight training by the U.S. Armed Forces, rather than an EFVS proficiency check, in lieu of the ground and flight training requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b). Accordingly, the training requirements in (a) and (b) do not apply to a military or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that person can document satisfactory completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations by the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA believes this change provides clarity and consistency for military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. Under § 61.66(f)(3), a military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements in paragraph (d) if he or she documents satisfactory completion of an EFVS proficiency 51 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 67841 (Nov. 12, 2013). Boeing commented that § 121.437 no longer exists and that the FAA should replace the regulatory reference with §§ 121.435 or 121.436. The FAA agrees with Boeing and is replacing the regulatory reference with § 121.436. A rulemaking action entitled ‘‘Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations’’ (78 FR 42374) removed § 121.437 from the regulations on July 15, 2013, and added new §§ 121.435 and 121.436. Section 121.435 contained the existing certificate requirements for part 121 pilots that were in effect until July 31, 2013. After that date, the requirements of § 121.436 began to apply. The FAA notes that § 121.435 is currently reserved. Therefore, the correct regulatory reference is § 121.436. The EFVS NPRM did not reflect these changes because it was published prior to the July 15, 2013 rulemaking action. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90152 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations check in the U.S. Armed Forces within 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight. The check must be conducted by a person authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to administer the check and the person receiving the check must have been a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at the time the check was administered. This requirement stems from proposed § 61.57(i)(2), which would have permitted EFVS proficiency checks received in the U.S. Armed Forces as a means of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). Proposed § 61.57(i)(2) was confusing, however, because a pilot operating under part 61 would not have the option of going to a person authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to perform EFVS proficiency checks, and a military pilot receiving an EFVS proficiency check in the U.S. Armed Forces would be receiving the check for military purposes—not for the purpose of satisfying the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). The FAA is therefore adopting new § 61.66(f)(3) to clarify that EFVS proficiency checks administered in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66(d). mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 7. Use of Full Flight Simulators (§ 61.66(g)) Section 61.66(g) states that a person may use a level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements of § 61.66. Section 61.66(g) is consistent with the NPRM, where proposed § 61.31(l)(5), § 61.57(h)(2), and § 61.57(i) would have permitted the use of FFS to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and proficiency check requirements of proposed § 61.31 and § 61.57. The FAA has decided to consolidate these proposed requirements into one section for clarity. Accordingly, § 61.66(g) now contains the FFS requirements for meeting the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements of § 61.66. The FAA is using the term ‘‘full flight simulator’’ in § 61.66(g), rather than ‘‘simulator’’ as proposed, because the term ‘‘simulator’’ in § 1.1 has been replaced with the term full flight simulator (FFS). Additionally, § 61.66(g) clarifies that the FFS must be evaluated and qualified by the National Simulator Program for EFVS operations, be qualified and maintained in accordance with part 60, or be a previously qualified device in accordance with § 60.17, and be approved by the FAA for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 the tasks and maneuvers that will be performed in the FFS. If a pilot is using a level C or higher FFS to meet the flight training requirements of § 61.66, the FFS must be equipped with a daylight visual display, as proposed in § 61.31(l)(5), because § 61.66(b)(2) requires certain flight training tasks to be conducted under both day and night conditions.52 However, the FAA is not adopting the proposed requirement that a level C or higher FFS be equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet the EFVS recent flight experience requirements because § 61.66(d) authorizes a pilot to complete the recent flight experience in either day or night conditions. 8. Exceptions (§ 61.66(h)) The FAA is adopting several exceptions to the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements in § 61.66. a. Manipulating the Controls (§ 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) Under § 61.66(b), no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation as specified in § 91.176(a) or (b) unless that person has received and logged flight training for the EFVS operation under a training program approved by the Administrator and obtained a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the flight training. The FAA now recognizes that, without an exception, § 61.66(b) would prohibit a person from manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation while he or she was receiving flight training in EFVS operations under an FAA approved training program. Immediately after the pilot received the required flight training and endorsement, however, he or she would be authorized to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during EFVS operations performed on his or her own. A pilot should be permitted to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation when that 52 Part 60 requires level C and level D simulators to have daylight visual scenes. See Part 60, Table A1A Minimum Simulator Requirements. However, before the FAA adopted part 60 on May 9, 2008, the FAA required only level D simulators to have daylight visual scenes. Section 61.66(g)(1) permits persons to use previously qualified devices in accordance with § 60.17. Thus, § 61.66(g)(3) expressly requires a level C or higher FFS to be equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet the flight training requirements of § 61.66(b). This equipment requirement is necessary because some level C simulators qualified prior to the establishment of part 60 were not required to have daylight visual scenes. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 pilot is receiving flight training on EFVS operations under an FAA approved training program, provided the training provider’s instructor is qualified under § 61.66 to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft in which the training is being conducted. Accordingly, the FAA is adding new § 61.66(h)(1)(i) to allow manipulation of the controls during flight training. The FAA also now recognizes that, without an exception, § 61.66(d) would prohibit a person from manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation conducted in the course of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements specified in paragraph (d). Similarly, without an exception, § 61.66(d) and (e) would prohibit a person from manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation conducted during an refresher course. Accordingly, the FAA is adding exceptions in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iii) to permit a person to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation conducted in the course of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements and in the course of completing EFVS refresher training. If a person whose currency had lapsed were to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation performed in the course of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements, another individual would have to serve as PIC of the aircraft during that EFVS operation because a person may not act as PIC during an EFVS operation unless he or she meets the recent flight experience requirements specified in paragraph (d).53 The individual serving as PIC during the EFVS operation must be qualified under § 61.66 to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft in which the flight is being conducted. Similarly, if a person were to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation performed in the course of completing an EFVS refresher course, the person administering the training would have to be qualified under § 61.66 to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft in which the training was being conducted. b. Exception to Ground and Flight Training (§ 61.66(h)(2)) The FAA is adding new § 61.66(h)(2) to provide personnel involved in certain research and development, EFVS certification, and operational suitability 53 The FAA notes that, under § 61.66(d), recent flight experience may be accomplished in any weather conditions not just conditions that require the use of an EFVS. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations determination activities an alternate means of meeting the training requirements of § 61.66(a) and (b). The FAA finds the addition is necessary because personnel involved in such activities, all of which may be conducted in aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191, may be otherwise unable to obtain training under an FAA-approved training program, as required by § 61.66(a) and (b).54 For example, FAA personnel involved in EFVS certification and operational suitability determination activities receive training through other processes that are provided for and specified in internal FAA Orders. These processes may differ from those specified in § 61.66(a) and (b), but are approved and used by the FAA. Another example is an applicant who seeks to certify an EFVS based on new sensor technology for which an FAA-approved training course does not yet exist and an authorized instructor who can give the training is not yet available. Accordingly, new § 61.66(h)(2) provides that the requirements specified in § 61.66(a) and (b) do not apply if a person is conducting a flight or series of flights in an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations provided the person has knowledge of the subjects specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and has experience with the tasks specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted. This provides some flexibility for tasks that might be specified in § 61.66(b)(2) but are not applicable to a particular research and development or show-compliance project. In order to qualify under the exception in § 61.66(h)(2), an applicant must submit evidence to the FAA showing that he or she complies with § 61.66(h)(2), along with his or her program letter and application for an experimental certificate. The guidance material will address circumstances in which it is appropriate for an applicant to use this alternate means of meeting the additional training required for EFVS operations under § 61.66(a) and (b), the process an applicant may follow, and other related regulatory requirements. 54 An FAA-approved training program means training acquired under part 141 or part 142, an FAA-approved training program under part 125 or part 91 subpart K, or an FAA-approved air carrier training program. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience Requirements (§ 61.66(h)(3)) As noted in the NPRM, parts 121, 125, 135, and 91 subpart K operators currently authorized to conduct EFVS operations must train, check, and qualify their pilots on EFVS in accordance with their OpSpec or MSpec. Existing regulations in parts 121, 135, and 91 subpart K require operators to provide training that ensures each crewmember is qualified on new equipment, facilities, procedures, and techniques, including modifications to aircraft.55 Part 125 does not contain training requirements for pilots; 56 however, at a minimum, any person serving as a required flightcrew member for a part 125 operator must meet the EFVS training requirements in § 61.66.57 The regulatory requirements to train crewmembers on EFVS are transparent within the relevant operating rules in 14 CFR. However, the requirement to be qualified for EFVS operations by one of the certificate holder’s check airmen is not as clearly set forth in part 121, 125, 135, or 91 subpart K. The FAA is therefore revising §§ 91.1065, 125.287, 135.293, and appendix F to part 121 58 to provide greater clarity on the checking requirements for EFVS operations. Operators authorized to conduct EFVS operations will incorporate EFVS into existing recurrent training and checking to ensure pilots remain proficient on EFVS tasks and maneuvers. Because pilots will be checked on EFVS tasks and maneuvers under part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135, the FAA is adding § 61.66(h)(3), which excepts parts 121, 125 (including part 125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart K pilots from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66(d).59 55 14 CFR 91.1081(e), 121.415(g), and 135.329(e). the part 125 regulatory design, reliance is placed upon tests and checks to ensure airman are proficient. These tests and checks are adequate to ensure an acceptable level of safety in part 125.’’ 45 FR 67214 (October 9, 1980). 57 Section 61.66 sets forth the specific contents for EFVS training. An EFVS training program—whether conducted by a part 121 air carrier, a part 135 operator, a part 142 training center, or a part 141 pilot school—must at a minimum include the content set forth in § 61.66(a) through (c). 58 Because § 61.66(g) authorizes a pilot to use a level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements of § 61.66, the FAA is also amending appendix H to part 121 to ensure that the EFVS proficiency check requirements added to appendix F will be completed in a level C or level D FFS. 59 Because § 61.66(h)(3) excepts part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135 operators from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66(d), these operators will never lapse under § 61.66(d), which means these operators will never have to reestablish EFVS currency under § 61.66(e). 56 ‘‘Under PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90153 The exception in § 61.66(h)(3) is consistent with the instrument recency provisions, namely § 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3), which except part 121 and 135 pilots from the instrument recent flight experience specified in § 61.57(c).60 Section 61.66(h)(3) also excepts part 91 subpart K and part 125 operators (including part 125 LODA holders) from the recent flight experience requirements in § 61.66(d) because, as a practical matter, part 91 subpart K and part 125 operators (including part 125 LODA holders) accomplish instrument proficiency checks under §§ 91.1069 and 125.291 rather than completing the instrument recency tasks specified in § 61.57(c). Section 61.66(d) is modeled after the instrument recent flight experience requirements in § 61.57. To be consistent with the practical application of §§ 61.57, 91.1069 and 125.291, and to ensure that the FAA does not impose an additional burden on part 91 subpart K and part 125 operations, the FAA is excepting them from § 61.66(d). Instead, part 91 subpart K and part 125 operators (including part 125 LODA holders) will be treated similar to part 121 and part 135 operators in terms of EFVS checking requirements, as explained above, which is consistent with the way the FAA has been treating them in EFVS authorizations since 2004. The exception in § 61.66(h)(3) states that the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d) do not apply to a pilot employed by: A part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121, 125, or 135; a part 125 LODA holder authorized to conduct operations under part 125; or a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91 subpart K, when the pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for that certificate holder, LODA holder, or program manager under parts 91, 121, 125, or 135, as applicable, provided the pilot is conducting the operation in accordance with the certificate holder’s OpSpec, with the LODA holder’s LOA, or with the program manager’s MSpec for EFVS operations. As with the recency exceptions in § 61.57, the exception from EFVS recency requirements set forth in § 61.66(h)(3) applies only when a pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for a Thus, the practical effect of § 61.66(h)(3) is that part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135 operators are also excepted from the EFVS refresher course requirements in § 61.66(e). 60 Section § 61.66(h)(3)(i) excepts part 121 and 135 operators from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements just as § 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3) except part 121 and 135 operators from the instrument recent flight experience requirements. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90154 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 part 119 certificate holder under part 91, 121, 125, or 135, for a LODA holder under part 125, or for a fractional ownership program manager under part 91 subpart K. The pilot would be required to comply with § 61.66(d) if he or she were to conduct an EFVS operation outside of the part 119 certificate holder’s, the LODA holder’s, or the part 91 subpart K program manager’s operations. If a pilot conducting EFVS operations for either a part 119 certificate holder, a LODA holder, or a program manager has not satisfied the recent flight experience requirements specified in § 61.66(d) within six calendar months preceding the month of his or her flight, that pilot would still be deemed EFVS current (outside of the part 119 certificate holder’s, the LODA holder’s, or the program manager’s operations) if he or she had accomplished a check on EFVS operations under part 91 subpart K, 121, 125, or 135 by an individual described in paragraph (e)(iii), (iv), or (v), as appropriate, provided it were obtained within six calendar months preceding the month of the flight. d. Grandfather Clause (§ 61.66(h)(4)) In the NPRM, the FAA proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii), which would have excepted pilots from the new EFVS ground and flight training requirements if they satisfactorily completed a training program, proficiency check, or other course of instruction applicable to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE that is acceptable to the Administrator prior to March 13, 2019. Proposed § 61.31(l)(7) was intended to decrease the regulatory burden on pilots who have been safely conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.175(l) and (m) and to provide pilot schools and training centers with adequate time to develop training programs that meet the proposed training requirements. After further consideration, the FAA finds that proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii) would not have sufficiently reduced the regulatory burden on operators who have been conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.175(l) and (m) as it focused only on pilot qualification requirements. Because this final rule should not cause any disruption to operators or pilots who have been conducting EFVS operations under § 91.175(l) and (m), the FAA is restructuring the proposed regulations to provide an adequate transition period for operators and pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, § 91.175(n) requires persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 TDZE to comply with either § 91.175(l) and (m) or § 91.176(b) until March 13, 2018.61 Beginning on March 13, 2018, persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply with § 91.176(b) and thus the training, recent flight experience and refresher training requirements set forth in § 61.66. The FAA is adding an exception to § 61.66(h)(5) to clarify that, notwithstanding § 91.175(l)(5), persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.175(l) and (m) prior to March 13, 2018, are not required to comply with the new training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements in § 61.66. Instead, during the transition period, persons may conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE just as they have been under § 91.175(l) and (m).62 The FAA believes the new transition period is consistent with the discussion in the NPRM in that it decreases the regulatory burden on persons already conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and it provides pilot schools and training centers with adequate time to develop training programs that meet the proposed training requirements. Furthermore, the FAA is adopting § 61.66(h)(4), which excepts persons from the ground and flight training requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b) if they are conducting EFVS operations under § 91.176(b) and can document that prior to March 13, 2018, they have satisfactorily completed ground and flight training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA notes, however, that in order to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, these persons must still complete the supplemental EFVS training pursuant to § 61.66(c). Section 61.66(h)(4) is consistent with the intent of proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii), which was to decrease the regulatory burden on pilots already conducting 61 Because persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may comply with § 91.175(l) and (m) prior to March 13, 2018, the appropriate sections of 14 CFR, including §§ 91.175, 91.1039, 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225, will reference both §§ 91.175(l) and 91.176. After March 13, 2018, however, § 91.175(l) and (m) will be removed from 14 CFR along with any references to these paragraphs. 62 Although operators conducting EFVS operations under § 91.175(l) and (m) were not required to receive EFVS training, the majority of them would have received EFVS training prior to conducting EFVS operations. As explained in the NPRM, EFVS manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators have all recognized the need for pilots to receive training in the use of EFVS prior to conducting EFVS operations. In fact, noncommercial operators generally obtained EFVS training for their pilots at 142 training centers. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE by providing them with a reasonable means of demonstrating compliance with the proposed ground and flight training requirements. The FAA restructured proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii), however, to clarify what is required of pilots who wish to be excepted from the new EFVS training requirements based on their previous EFVS experience. Accordingly, new § 61.66(h)(4) clarifies that pilots must be able to document that prior to March 13, 2018, they have satisfactorily completed ground and flight training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.63 The FAA acknowledges the reduction in time from 24 calendar months after the effective date of the final rule to 12 months after the effective date of the final rule. The FAA reduced the cutoff date to 12 months after the effective date of the final rule to coincide with the transition period provided to operators in § 91.175(n). Reducing the duration of time to 12 calendar months should not impact operators as the FAA expects operators to comply with § 91.176(b) and § 61.66 as soon as practicable. Likewise, pilots who have received training in EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE during the transition period will not be required to duplicate that training—as permitted under § 61.66(h)(4). Furthermore, while proposed § 61.31(l)(7) was intended to provide training centers and pilot schools sufficient time to either revise or develop training programs that complied with the new training requirements; it would not have established a definitive compliance date for such persons. The FAA is therefore adopting § 91.176(b)(4) to clarify that persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply with the new requirements in § 91.176(b) and § 61.66 beginning on March 13, 2018. However, the FAA encourages persons to comply with the new requirements in § 91.176(b) and § 61.66 as soon as practicable. 63 Section 61.66(h)(4) does not require the ground and flight training on EFVS operations to have been obtained under an FAA approved training program. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a Flight Using EFVS-Equipped Aircraft When the Reported or Forecast Visibility at the Destination Airport Is Below Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.613, 125.361, 135.219) and Initiating or Continuing an Approach Using EFVSEquipped Aircraft When the Destination Airport Visibility Is Below Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, 135.225) The FAA proposed to amend the dispatch, flight release, and takeoff regulations found in §§ 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219 to permit operators authorized to conduct EFVS operations to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR when weather reports or forecasts indicate that weather conditions will be below the minimums authorized for the approaches to be flown at the destination airport. The FAA is no longer amending §§ 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219, as proposed, because the amendments are unnecessary as evidenced by a legal interpretation that was issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Regulations Division on April 21, 2009.64 The legal interpretation explains that authorized minimums are identified in various documents pertaining to the conduct of the flight, such as standard instrument approach procedures and operations specifications. Weather conditions at an airport must be at or above these authorized minimums at an aircraft’s estimated time of arrival if the aircraft is to be dispatched or released under part 121 or 125, or a pilot takes off under IFR or begins an IFR over-the-top operation under part 135, to that location. For an EFVS operation, the controlling visibility limitation will be specified in the operator’s OpSpec or LOA authorizing the use of EFVS.65 Because the FAA interprets ‘‘authorized minimums’’ in §§ 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219 to include visibility minimums specified in OpSpecs, an operator authorized to conduct EFVS operations is already permitted to dispatch, release, or takeoff when weather reports or forecasts indicate that the weather conditions will be below the minimums authorized in the standard instrument mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 64 Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. James B. Hart from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (April 21, 2009); see also FAA Information for Operators (Info) 08050 (Sept. 25, 2008). 65 The FAA recognizes that operators authorized to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.175 do not have visibility limitations specified in their OpSpecs or LOAs authorizing the use of EFVS. The FAA will include visibility limitations in OpSpecs or LOAs authorizing EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under § 91.176(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 approach procedure to be flown at the destination airport, so long as the weather conditions will be at or above the controlling visibility limitation in the OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS.66 The FAA also proposed to amend §§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a) to permit operators to dispatch or release an EFVS-equipped aircraft when weather reports or forecasts indicate that the weather conditions will be below the authorized minimums at the destination airport. The FAA is no longer amending §§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a), as proposed, because the amendments are unnecessary as evidenced by two legal interpretations that were issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Regulations Division on April 12, 2010 and May 31, 2006.67 The legal interpretations explain that under § 121.615(a), an air carrier may dispatch an extended overwater flight to a destination airport that is forecasted to be below minimums so long as an alternate airport is forecasted to be above minimums. The FAA interprets § 125.363(a) consistently with § 121.615(a) because § 125.363(a) was based on, and contains the same language as, § 121.615(a).68 It is therefore unnecessary to amend §§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a) as proposed. As originally proposed, the FAA is amending §§ 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225 to permit operators authorized to conduct EFVS operations to initiate or continue an approach under IFR when weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate the weather conditions at the destination airport are below the authorized minimums for the approach to be flown. The FAA has also decided to amend § 91.1039(e), which was not originally proposed, to clarify that an EFVS operation is permitted when the landing weather minimums are less than those prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over the airport. The FAA believes these amendments will enable operators to take full advantage of the operational capabilities provided by EFVS to improve access to runways, 66 While § 135.219 uses the term ‘‘authorized IFR landing minimums’’ rather than ‘‘authorized minimums,’’ the FAA interprets § 135.219 consistently with §§ 121.613 and 125.361. 67 Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Gregory Unterseher from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (April 12, 2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Mark Anderson from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (May 31, 2006). 68 Proposal to Upgrade Regulation of Certain Large General Aviation Airplanes and Replace Commercial Operator and Air Travel Club Regulations, 44 FR 66324, 66327 (Nov. 19, 1979). PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90155 increase service reliability, and reduce the costs associated with operational delays, without compromising safety. Boeing commented that when the rule becomes effective and operators obtain the appropriate authorization to conduct EFVS operations, they will be able to fly approaches to landing and rollout in virtually any weather. Boeing questioned whether performance data is currently available that demonstrates there will be a consistent positive outcome across all operators as a result of this new capability. It suggested the FAA obtain experience with one or two operators before adopting the EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout rule for all operators. It believes it is more appropriate to get performance data for a few operators using the new capability, before making it available to everyone. The FAA disagrees. Operators have been safely conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE for over 12 years. This final rule is expanding these operations to include EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and to permit operators using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release a flight, or takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended landing. The FAA is implementing new training, recent flight experience, and proficiency requirements to ensure that pilots are trained and tested to a standard on EFVS operations and to ensure that these pilots maintain the knowledge and skills necessary to safely conduct EFVS operations. Additionally, the FAA intends to provide operating conditions and limitations in an operator’s EFVS authorization to ensure the safe conduct of all EFVS operations. Furthermore, the FAA specifically structured the EFVS regulations to provide flexibility and to enable the FAA to structure an operator’s authorization to conduct new EFVS operations in a way that links equipage and system performance to specific operational capabilities. The equipment certification process will ensure the EFVS meets the equipment requirements and certification criteria for the operation for which the EFVS is intended. The operational approval process will validate the operator’s ability to safely perform the EFVS operation.69 The operational approval 69 AC 90–106A, Section 10, ‘‘Operational Approval Process for EFVS Operations,’’ provides an approval process for operators to demonstrate their ability to perform EFVS operations under § 91.176. The process consists of five distinct, yet E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM Continued 13DER3 90156 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 process also evaluates and monitors EFVS equipment reliability and validates the operator’s ability to maintain the EFVS equipment. Several commenters requested clarification on how the FAA intends to manage an operator’s authorization to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums. Airbus noted that the FAA expects to manage this authorization through an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations to ensure that an increase in the rate of missed approaches does not occur. It requested clarification on how the FAA will manage this expectation and what requirements this might place on airborne sensor performance. CMC Electronics, Inc. (CMC) asked the FAA to clarify how it will require OEMs to demonstrate EFVS capabilities to support these authorizations. To illustrate its concerns, CMC noted that RVR reporting does not directly relate to EFVS performance and stated that a given RVR measurement can be a result of different types of weather conditions that look the same in the visible spectrum but may lead to different performance in currently certified EFVS systems. Rockwell Collins commented that it assumes visibility limitations will appear in an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations as the limitations do not appear in rule language. Rockwell Collins also asked whether it is possible to have a higher than RVR 1000 feet visibility limitation based on a lesser performing sensor, or whether there is the potential for a sensor to be given multiple approvals based on performance in different environmental conditions. Thales commented that the FAA should clearly define minimums for these operations based on EFVS sensor technology, system performance, and installation criteria to ensure equality of treatment for all applicants. The response to these comments is that an applicant who seeks to certify an EFVS will demonstrate EFVS performance for its aircraft during the related phases. The demonstration and inspection phase of the process is the major validation phase where the FAA observes and evaluates the operator’s demonstration of its ability to perform in accordance with the procedures, guidelines, and parameters described in the operator’s formal proposal. This phase concludes when the operator provides sufficient proof to satisfy the FAA’s requirements. The demonstration and inspection phase permits new EFVS capabilities to be deployed while providing regulatory oversight and verification of system and crew performance. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 EFVS equipment certification process.70 During that process, the FAA will determine whether an EFVS meets the equipment requirements and certification criteria for the EFVS operation it is intended to be used for (i.e., an EFVS operation to 100 feet or an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout). EFVS equipment certification criteria differ depending on the EFVS operation to be conducted. Initially the FAA plans to authorize EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to visibilities as low as RVR 1000 feet. The FAA expects to develop touchdown and rollout authorizations in the future to lower visibilities as EFVS equipment is developed to support those operations. In addition to the EFVS equipment certification process, the operational approval process—which verifies an operator’s ability to safely perform the EFVS operation—includes a demonstration and inspection phase. During this phase, the FAA evaluates an operator’s processes, procedures, and training as well as the ability of the operator’s maintenance personnel and dispatchers, or persons authorized to exercise operational control, to support the EFVS operations to be conducted. This process verifies the operator’s ability to conduct EFVS operations and to determine when it is appropriate to dispatch a flight, release a flight, or take off under IFR as well as initiate or continue an approach when the weather at the destination airport is below authorized minimums. In accordance with § 91.176(a)(4), the FAA may prescribe additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics, operational procedures, or approach characteristics through an operator’s authorization to conduct EFVS operations. Accordingly, the FAA may specify minimum visibilities in OpSpecs for part 121, 125, or 135 operators to initiate and continue an approach using an EFVS-equipped aircraft when the destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums for the approach to be flown. Therefore, as Rockwell Collins assumed, visibility limitations will appear in an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations. In response to Rockwell Collins’ inquiry, it is possible to have a higher than RVR 1000-feetvisibility limitation depending on the capability of the EFVS equipment and 70 Part 21 contains the certification procedures for products and parts. Parts 23, 25, 27 and 29 contain the airworthiness standards for EFVS. AC 20–167A and AC 90–106A contain guidance on EFVS sensor performance and airworthiness certification appropriate to the EFVS operation to be conducted. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 on the EFVS operation the equipment is certified to support. Authorizations for future EFVS operations may specify other requirements under § 91.176(a)(4), depending on the EFVS operation to be conducted and the ability of the EFVS equipment to support a given EFVS operation. The FAA disagrees with Thales that it should mandate specific minimums by regulation for EFVS operations as this would be contrary to the FAA’s intent. The FAA acknowledges that EFVS performance using currently certified EFVS equipment can vary by sensor technology and design, meteorological conditions, and other factors; however, the FAA may make adjustments to an operator’s EFVS authorization. Managing an authorization in this manner ensures that the FAA is able to maintain an appropriate level of safety, enables the FAA to effectively respond to new technology developments, and provides a means to tailor an authorization to fit an operator’s particular EFVS capabilities. Therefore, although giving a sensor multiple approvals based on performance in different environmental conditions, as Rockwell Collins suggested, is impractical, the FAA may adjust an operator’s EFVS authorization in response to certain conditions. For example, operational experience may indicate that adjustments may have to be made in response to certain meteorological conditions. Operators who plan to conduct these operations should establish operating procedures and training that account for the limitations of the EFVS and weather conditions that may exceed the sensor’s ability to provide the enhanced flight visibility required to complete the approach and landing. Eurocopter/American Eurocopter commented that the provisions of § 121.651(d) that permit a pilot to begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure other than a Category II or Category III procedure at an airport when the visibility is less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure should not be limited to airports that are served by an operative ILS and an operative PAR. Eurocopter asserted that LPV approaches are becoming commonplace and are the only approaches with vertical guidance available at many airfields. The commenter recommended that § 121.651(d) permit the use of WAAS/ LPV, particularly with respect to EFVS operations. The FAA is not adopting Eurocopter/ American Eurocopter’s recommendations because they are E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to change the current requirements of § 121.651(d) with respect to non-EFVS operations. The FAA notes, however, that § 121.651(e) permits a pilot to begin the final approach segment of an Area Navigation (RNAV) (GPS) approach to the published LPV (or other applicable) minimums when the visibility is reported to be below the visibility prescribed by the instrument approach procedure when using EFVS as specified in that paragraph. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation commented that the FAA did not limit the use of EFVS for landing to ‘‘certain operators.’’ However, the commenter noted that the NPRM would have permitted ‘‘certain operators’’ using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather was below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended landing. Gulfstream commented that the FAA’s use of the term ‘‘certain operators’’ makes it appear as if dispatch and takeoff using EFVS is restricted. It further stated that if this restriction applies to some operators and not others, the rationale for the distinction should be provided. The term ‘‘certain operators’’ means persons conducting EFVS operations under part 121, 125, or 135 whose operations are subject to specific rules governing the dispatch, release, or takeoff of aircraft under IFR. Prior to this final rule, regulations prohibited these operators from dispatching, releasing, or initiating a flight under IFR when the reported or forecast visibility at the destination airport was below authorized minimums. Regulations also prohibited these operators from initiating or continuing an approach when the destination airport visibility was below authorized minimums. The FAA did not intend the term ‘‘certain operators’’ to imply that additional restrictions would be imposed upon individual operators. Dassault Aviation noted references made by the FAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) reduction of 1⁄3 of the visibility required to conduct an approach using EFVS in EASA member states. Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA articulate its position with respect to this means of calculating visibility minimums for EFVS operations. The FAA acknowledges that EASA uses a different method to permit operators to conduct EFVS operations. However, this rulemaking only addresses EFVS VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 operations that are subject to FAA regulations. Rockwell Collins asked whether the FAA and EASA will attempt to harmonize EFVS approved capabilities and requirements in the future. In its comment, Rockwell Collins referred to differences between FAA and EASA regulations such as the requirements applicable to beginning an approach when the reported visibility is less than the visibility specified in the instrument approach procedure to be flown. The FAA participates on several international committees that are tasked with addressing advanced vision system operations. Every attempt is made to harmonize those operations; however, differences in underlying operational concepts and existing regulations may preclude full harmonization of EFVS rules. G. Revisions to Category II and III General Operating Rules To Permit the Use of an EFVS (§ 91.189) Section 91.189 contains the general operating rules for Category II and Category III operations.71 As originally proposed, § 91.189(d) now permits a pilot to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to identify the visual references required for descent below the authorized DH on a Category II or III approach. A pilot conducting a Category II or III approach in accordance with § 91.189(d) must comply with either the provisions of that paragraph for identifying required visual references using natural vision or with the provisions of § 91.176 for identifying required visual references using EFVS.72 Also as originally proposed, § 91.189(e) now permits a pilot operating an aircraft in a Category II or III approach to continue the approach below the authorized DA/DH provided the conditions specified in § 91.176 are met.73 71 Section 91.189(g) states that the provisions of § 91.189 do not apply to Category II or Category III operations conducted by certificate holders operating under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135, or holders of MSpecs issued in accordance with part 91, subpart K. Therefore, § 91.189 only pertains to part 91 operators other than those conducting operations under part 91, subpart K. 72 Prior to this final rule, a pilot operating an aircraft on a Category II or Category III approach that requires the use of a DA/DH could not continue the approach below the authorized DH unless he or she had at least one of the visual references listed in § 91.189(d)(2) distinctly visible and identifiable using natural vision. 73 The FAA notes that all of the equipment requirements and airmen certification requirements for the conduct of Category II and Category III operations will continue to apply when an EFVS is used during the conduct of those operations. The FAA also notes that an operator intending to use an EFVS to descend below DA/DH during the conduct of an authorized Category II or Category III PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90157 Thales commented that the revisions to § 91.189(d) are confusing when considering how an EFVS might be used during Category III operations. It stated that the amendments are applicable to Category II operations because the DH is at 100 feet, but for Category III operations where the DH is less than 100 feet, Thales believes that the rule should address this segment of the approach. The FAA disagrees that the regulation should specifically address the use of EFVS during Category III approaches. Rather, the FAA is revising the applicable portions of § 91.189 to align it with § 91.176, which facilitates the possible future use of authorized EFVS operations during authorized Category II or Category III operations. In § 91.189(d), the FAA is amending the regulations for part 91 operators (except for part 91, subpart K operators) to permit them to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to identify the required visual references. Under this rule, § 91.189(e) now permits a pilot operating an aircraft on a Category II or III approach to continue the approach below the authorized DA/DH provided the conditions specified in § 91.176 are met. The FAA notes that it authorizes Category II or Category III operations through an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA. Therefore, an operator who wishes to conduct an EFVS operation during an authorized Category II or Category III operation may only do so in accordance with an OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA. The FAA is also adding paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (b)(2)(x) to § 91.176 to clarify the requirement for an authorization to conduct an EFVS operation during an authorized Category II or Category III operation. The FAA notes that it will develop authorizations and guidance to support future EFVS operations. H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and Airworthiness Standards for Vision Systems With Transparent Displays Located in the Pilot’s Outside Field of View (§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773) Sections 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 specify the requirements and conditions under which the pilot compartment must provide an extensive, clear, and undistorted view to the pilot for safe operation of the aircraft within its operating limitations. operation will be required to revise its Category II or Category Ill manual specified in § 91.191 to reflect the use of EFVS. A person seeking to conduct authorized Category II or Category III operations where the use of EFVS is necessary to conduct those operations will have to be authorized by the Administrator. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Additionally, the regulations require that the pilot compartment be free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the normal duties of the minimum flightcrew. When these rules were originally issued, the FAA did not anticipate the development of vision systems with transparent displays that could significantly enhance, or even substitute for, a pilot’s natural vision. Vision systems are used to display an image of the external scene to the flightcrew. For over a decade, the FAA has certified vision systems for transport category aircraft that have head up displays. However, prior to this final rule, the airworthiness standards governing the pilot compartment view set forth in § 25.773 were inadequate to address the novel or unusual design features of these systems. Therefore, the FAA issued special conditions under § 21.16 to provide airworthiness standards, which were used to enable the installation of vision systems that met a level of safety equivalent to that established by the regulations. Special conditions were issued to each applicant, because special conditions only apply to individual certification projects. However, for consistency, the FAA attempted to standardize these special conditions to the maximum extent possible. With over fourteen years of experience, the process of developing special conditions for vision systems has become routine, and operational experience has shown that the certification requirements set forth in the special conditions have resulted in safe and effective vision system operations. Based on the experience gained by the FAA in developing special conditions, the FAA is establishing airworthiness standards for vision systems with transparent displays located in the pilot’s outside view for airplanes and rotorcraft. This will provide industry with known requirements for the certification of these systems and eliminate the costs resulting from the process of issuing special conditions. Accordingly, the FAA is amending §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 to include the general requirements that were previously contained in special conditions. In recognition of the rapid development of vision system technology, these amendments permit the certification of a wide range of current and future vision systems, such as an EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS, and they address display methods other than a HUD, such as head mounted displays or other types of head up presentations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 1. Vision Systems and Display Methods Addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 Under §§ 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2), when the vision system displays imagery and any symbology referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, FPV, and FPARC, that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. This requirement marks a slight change from the NPRM where the proposed rule would have required the vision system to continuously display the imagery, attitude symbology, FPV, FPARC, and other cues, which are referenced to the imagery and external scene topography. Thales commented that the proposed airworthiness standards would have required the FPARC to be permanently displayed along with the EFVS imagery. Thales stated that there are phases of flight where this symbology may not be necessary. It suggested the FAA require, ‘‘flight path angle reference cue when necessary.’’ Airbus submitted a similar comment, stating that § 25.773(e)(2) should provide for presenting a reduced set of aircraft flight information and flight symbology on the HUD or other equivalent display. It stated that the declutter mode should be allowed to preserve, or not interfere with, the EFVS image and outside view. Airbus’s comment also applied to § 23.773(c)(2) and could have necessitated revisions to § 91.175(m) as well. Airbus proposed that § 25.773(e)(2) should permit the display of some cues to be removed depending on the flown phase. The FAA agrees that the airworthiness standards should not require the continuous display of specific symbology, including the FPARC, in all phases of flight. The FAA’s intent was not to require the display of any EFVS symbology or imagery in the airworthiness rules as these rules also address transparent display surfaces for systems other than EFVS. Instead, the FAA intended to identify those visually displayed elements, such as imagery and earth-referenced symbology, which need to be conformal—that is, scaled to and aligned with the outside view. Accordingly, the regulations do not require the continuous display of specific symbology. However, the FAA does not agree that it should revise the operating requirements in § 91.175(m), which have been moved to § 91.176. The operating rules require specific information to be displayed to the pilot. The FAA notes, however, that EFVS typically have declutter modes available PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 to the pilot that provide a reduced set of information when it is necessary for the safe conduct of the flight. Eurocopter and American Eurocopter commented that the airworthiness certification rules should be more specific about which types of vision systems they address. It stated that the regulations were specific to EFVS and not to other vision systems that might be certified under these regulations. The FAA agrees with the commenter that the rule language, as proposed, would have required the continuous display of symbology and imagery that was applicable only to EFVS and not to other vision systems that might be certified under these regulations. The airworthiness requirements of §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 apply to any vision system such as an EFVS, EVS, SVS, or CVS that uses a transparent display surface, such as a head up display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, that is located in the pilot’s outside field of view. Accordingly, the FAA is not requiring the continuous display of EFVS symbology and imagery in the airworthiness standards applicable to pilot compartment view. Sections 91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), however, include specific equipment requirements that address the presentation of sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology for the conduct of EFVS operations. Honeywell commented that the FAA should apply the airworthiness standards to all vision systems. It believes that applying the standards to all vision systems would potentially ease certification delays and provide a clear path to certification for proven technology that meets specified performance requirements. The FAA agrees and notes that the airworthiness standards in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 already address all vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head up display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. The FAA also notes that AC 20–167A provides the means of compliance for certifying a vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view. Airbus asked if the FAA would revise the pilot compartment view requirements to apply to HDD vision systems. GAMA commented that the NPRM references ‘‘vision systems’’ in several locations, which seem to describe HUD-based systems. GAMA was concerned that the use of the term ‘‘vision systems’’ may negatively impact stand-alone head down systems, such as E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Synthetic Vision Systems, common in many general aviation aircraft. GAMA recommended that the FAA review its use of the term ‘‘vision system’’ and replace it with the term ‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision System,’’ as defined in § 1.1. The FAA disagrees with GAMA. The FAA used the term ‘‘vision system’’ to include any EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS that uses a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. The certification regulations in this rule do not apply to other vision systems that have only a head down display. Accordingly, the FAA is not revising these requirements to include HDDs. Cessna Aircraft Company commented that the proposed certification rules pertaining to vision systems were too general and did not include all of the requirements of the operating rules. It suggested aligning the requirements of §§ 23.773(c), 25.773(e), 27.773(c) and 29.773(c) with the operating rules in terms of features and functions that are required to meet the rule, or invoke them by reference. The FAA disagrees with the commenter. Sections 23.773(c), 25.773(e), 27.773(c), and 29.773(c) contain airworthiness requirements related to providing a safe pilot compartment view, not requirements that are specific to meeting operating rules. The airworthiness standards in these sections apply to all vision systems with transparent display surfaces located in the pilot’s outside field of view. Not all of these vision systems may be used for EFVS operations. The FAA is therefore including specific equipment requirements in § 91.176 for EFVS operations. AC 20–167A contains a means of compliance for EFVS, EVS, SVS, and CVS and provides guidance material on features and functions required by the rule. 2. Pilot’s Outside View—Terminology and Compensation for Interference Sections 23.773(c)(1), 25.773(e)(1), 27.773(c)(1), and 29.773(c)(1) require the vision system display to compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it enables the pilot using the vision system to perform the actions necessary for the operation of the aircraft as safely and effectively as he or she would without a vision system. The terminology in these requirements differs slightly from the NPRM, which VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 used the term ‘‘pilot’s outside view,’’ rather than ‘‘field of view.’’ Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation commented that the term ‘‘pilot’s outside view’’ was unclear. The FAA agrees and is adopting the term ‘‘pilot’s outside field of view’’ to refer to what is visible to the pilot from the pilot compartment through the windows of the flight deck looking out, primarily forward of the aircraft, but not limited to the forward field of view. Elbit Systems of America commented that the FAA should either revise or not adopt the requirement of §§ 23.773(c)(1), 25.773(e)(1), 27.773(c)(1), and 29.773(c)(1), specifying that a vision system must compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside view because it believes the requirement is ambiguous and requires clarification. The FAA disagrees and is adopting the requirement that the vision system display must compensate for the visual interference it may cause. It may compensate by providing visual content on the display and by providing EFVS controls that allow the pilot to use sensor imagery safely in a variety of lighting conditions. While it is in operation, the vision system must compensate for interference such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it enables the pilot to perform those maneuvers and procedures necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. The rule provides the performance requirements for the system. AC 20–167A clarifies how EFVS may comply with this requirement. 3. Undistorted View Requirements Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) state that the pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or the vision system imagery. This differs slightly from what the FAA proposed based on concerns raised by commenters. Boeing commented that the term ‘‘undistorted’’ in proposed § 25.773(e)(2) was not defined in the NPRM. Boeing asserted the term ‘‘undistorted’’ was subjective and that an applicant needs quantitative standards for certification to ensure the interpretation of the term is consistent and to ensure the applicant knows how to comply with the requirement. Boeing noted that the FAA could address this term in AC 20–167, SAE ARP–5288, or some other airworthiness standards document but asserted that a clear definition and means of compliance was necessary. Crew Systems commented that the requirement for the display to provide PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90159 an ‘‘undistorted view of the external scene’’ was excessive as it is not possible to have a see-through panel with no distortion, and suggested that the FAA require that the level of distortion could not interfere with the pilot’s ability to control the aircraft trajectory with reference to the scene presented. Elbit Systems of America stated that ‘‘an undistorted view of the external scene’’ should be consistent with other regulatory guidance. Elbit Systems contended that all optical systems have some allowable optical distortion levels and that it is not possible to produce a vision system that provides an undistorted view. Elbit pointed out that AC 20–167A allows for optical distortion, and referred to Section 4.5(c)(4)(h)(iv), which states optical distortion should be 5 percent or less across the minimal field of regard and no greater than 8 percent outside the minimal field of regard. Elbit believes the FAA should allow for some inherent optical distortion. Based on these comments, the FAA is revising the first sentence of §§ 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) to require that, ‘‘The pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery.’’ The FAA believes that this clarifies the intent of the rule. While any see-through display may have some distortion, similar to the window panels in the flight deck of the aircraft, such distortion must be practically imperceptible to the pilot’s eyes and create no adverse misleading effects on the pilot’s view. The level of distortion should not interfere with or adversely affect the pilot’s visual task performance. This requirement is an extension of the requirement in § 25.773(a)(1) that the pilot’s view be sufficiently undistorted. AC 20–167A sets forth an acceptable means of complying with requirements applicable to optical distortion, along with AC 25– 11B, appendix F. 4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and Head Mounted Display (HMD) Considerations Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) require that, when the vision system displays imagery and any symbology referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, they must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. Crew Systems commented that a vision system with a transparent display surface requires alignment of the vision system cues with the external scene. It also stated that these operations require E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90160 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations a high degree of reliability and integrity, and that the proposal should include some mention of the effect of misalignment of the image with reference to the real world. In particular, the use of head mounted displays will require a precise alignment which in turn will place demands on the head tracker system. The commenter thought the rules should discuss equipment, systems, and installation requirements (§§ 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) as they apply to head tracker systems. The commenter also contended that a head tracker system should be fail operational,74 which would impose more stringent requirements than have been required to date. The FAA agrees with the safety intent of the comment. Image alignment should not interfere with or adversely affect the pilot’s visual task performance. While all optical systems have some allowable optical distortion levels, the level of distortion cannot interfere with the pilot’s ability to control the aircraft trajectory with reference to the real world. For further discussion on distortion, see the FAA’s disposition of comments above in section III.H.3 of the preamble. With respect to Crew Systems comments on head tracker systems, the FAA has not yet developed detailed criteria for head worn displays (HWD), of which the head tracker is a component. As head wearable display technology improves, AC 20–167A, and any subsequent revision, may contain the means of compliance. The FAA has tasked the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) with developing an aerospace standard for head wearable display performance criteria, which the FAA will consider including in the advisory circular guidance criteria. Therefore, any equipment, system, and installation criteria for a fail operational head tracker system would be included in airworthiness and operational guidance and not primarily in the pilot compartment view regulations. The Helicopter Association International commented that the rule should address head mounted display (HMD) head tracker integrity to avoid potential misleading display of imagery or symbology resulting from head tracker misalignment. The FAA does not agree to explicitly address HMD head tracker integrity in the rule. The performance based airworthiness standards of §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 already 74 A fail operational system is a system capable of completing the specified phases of an operation following the failure of any single system component after passing a point designated by the applicable safety analysis (e.g., Alert Height). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 address the commenter’s concerns. While no HMD installation has been approved by the FAA, nor a complete set of airworthiness criteria established, the FAA does expect to develop appropriate means of compliance with applicable regulatory requirements in the future. As head-mounted or headworn displays are developed for use in vision system operations, the FAA will develop specific guidance to assist in compliance. ALPA commented that the rule requires an EFVS to provide an undistorted view of the external scene, yet notes ALPA pilots who have flown with EFVS report some EFVS images have parallax when viewed from offcenter. Assuming parallax is considered a distortion, ALPA recommended that the FAA establish and quantify a tolerance level regarding the acceptability of parallax in EFVS landing operations. The regulations state that the pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. Guidance relating to display criteria, including parallax, is contained in AC 20–167A. As set forth in that AC, ‘‘Parallax should not result in significant performance differences in safety-related performance parameters (e.g., flare height, sink rate, touchdown location, groundspeed during landing, exit and taxi) between EFVS operations and visual operations in the same aircraft.’’ AC 20–167A, Section 4–5 contains additional guidance applicable to EFVS displays. 5. Requirement To Provide a Means of Immediate Deactivation and Reactivation of Vision System Imagery As originally proposed, §§ 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3) require that the vision system provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust controls, and for rotorcraft, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight and power controls, such as cyclic and collective, or their equivalent. FedEx Express, Gulfstream, and Elbit Systems of America recommended against including this requirement in §§ 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3). They asserted that these regulations pertain to pilot compartment view and that it is not necessary to include these details when they are also addressed in AC 20– 167. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The FAA disagrees. The control requirement of §§ 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3) protects the pilot’s view of the outside scene. If the sensor imagery were to obscure the pilot’s view of the outside scene, the pilot should have a readily available means to immediately remove the sensor imagery from the HUD. Accordingly, the FAA is requiring immediate deactivation and reactivation. Eurocopter, American Eurocopter, and GAMA commented that it is not clear whether the requirement applies to the imagery, the piloting symbology, or both. They stated that the ability to deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery and the piloting symbology may be affected by the type of technology on which the vision system is based. As an example, they pointed out that if night vision goggles (NVGs) were used as an EVS, pilots would have to remove their hands from the flight controls to raise the goggles out of their field-of-view. They recommended that the FAA clarify in the regulations that only the imagery must be deactivated and reactivated on demand. The FAA does not agree with the recommendation. The commenters’ concerns have already been addressed because the regulations specify that the pilot must be able to immediately deactivate and reactivate only the vision system imagery on demand. The FAA notes that applicants should also comply with guidance applicable to HUD installations. In addition, NVGs are not transparent displays and are not addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773 and 29.773. NVGs do not meet the definition of an EFVS. Specifically, NVGs are not transparent when turned off, do not provide the required aircraft flight information and flight symbology, and are not certified to be used in lieu of natural vision to descend below DA/ DH or MDA during EFVS operations under IFR. NVGs are aids to natural vision in VMC, not IMC. Airbus commented that the certification requirement to provide the pilot with a means to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery on demand without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight and power controls is not relevant to all operations where an EFVS might be used. It suggested that this airworthiness certification requirement should not apply when a pilot uses an EFVS for situation awareness only, i.e., when not used to conduct operations under § 91.176(a) or (b). E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations The FAA disagrees with the commenter’s proposed exception. Providing the pilot a means to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery on demand without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight and power controls is a minimum requirement regardless of whether the EFVS is being used for situation awareness or to conduct an EFVS operation. Because there are times when a pilot may need to quickly remove or restore the sensor imagery during a critical phase of flight, it is essential for the pilot to be able to quickly remove or restore the vision system imagery on demand without removing his or her hands from the primary flight and power controls. This requirement, therefore, protects the pilot’s view of the outside scene and applies to all vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 6. Vision Systems and Requirements Applicable to Duties and Maneuvers Sections 25.773(e) and 29.773(c) state that a vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head-up display, head-mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), respectively, in nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions. These requirements differ slightly from the NPRM based on a comment from Sierra Nevada Corporation. Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that §§ 25.773(e)(1) and (e)(4) and §§ 29.773(c)(1) and (c)(4) apply to the duties and maneuvers of §§ 25.773(a) and 29.773(a), which are limited to nonprecipitation conditions. Sierra Nevada Corporation thought it reasonable that the requirements would also apply during precipitation conditions. Sierra Nevada Corporation proposed that the requirements apply in any precipitation and lighting conditions — day or night—in which the EFVS is to be certified. The FAA agrees that the requirements should apply in both precipitation and nonprecipitation conditions. Accordingly, the FAA is revising the introductory language in §§ 25.773(e) and 29.773(c) to address both precipitation and nonprecipitation conditions. Lighting, however, is addressed in other airworthiness standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS Installations Rockwell Collins commented that FAA vision system issue papers 75 have identified unique EFVS issues related to system operation and safety, and inquired whether these issue papers will also be eliminated based on the new airworthiness requirements for vision systems in the rule and associated advisory circulars. The FAA used HUD issue papers for general means of compliance with part 25 and for special conditions related to pilot compartment view. The HUD installation means of compliance issue papers are no longer necessary now that AC 25–11, Revision B was published in October 2014. AC 20–167A is used as the primary means of compliance for installations of EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS. The special conditions for display of vision system video on the HUD will no longer be necessary after this final rule becomes effective. However, an issue paper for dual-HUD installations may still be used to address means of compliance with occupant safety regulations, such as §§ 25.562 and 25.785, until a new policy statement is published to address this topic. 8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation and Bird Strike Requirements Crew Systems commented that the FAA should explicitly require a fixed head up display combiner to meet the bird strike requirements of § 25.775. The FAA disagrees. Section 25.775 addresses design and construction requirements for windshields and windows. These requirements provide an appropriate level of safety against the hazard of a bird strike, and additional requirements applicable to HUD installation would not provide any additional safety benefit. I. Related and Conforming Amendments (§§ 91.175, 91.905, and 135.225) The FAA did not receive any comments on the related and conforming amendments it proposed in the NPRM. The FAA is therefore adopting the related amendments as originally proposed. However, because operators may continue to comply with § 91.175(l) prior to March 13, 2018, the FAA is not adopting the conforming amendments it originally proposed to § 91.175. Instead, the FAA is amending § 91.175 to include references to both § 91.175(l) and § 91.176 until March 13, 75 The FAA uses issue papers to provide a structured means to address certain issues in the type certification and type validation processes. ‘‘Issue Paper Process,’’ AC No. 20–166A (Nov. 6, 2014). PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90161 2018. The revisions to § 91.175 are discussed in more detail below. In § 91.175(c)(3)(vi), the FAA is revising the term ‘‘visual approach slope indicator’’ to read ‘‘the visual glideslope indicator,’’ because the term ‘‘visual approach slope indicator’’ is overly restrictive. In § 91.176(b), which contains the regulations that were moved from § 91.175(l), the FAA is revising ‘‘DH or MDA’’ to read ‘‘DA/DH or MDA’’ to correct an inadvertent omission that occurred in a previous rulemaking.76 The FAA is revising § 91.905 to include § 91.176 as a rule subject to waiver. Section 91.175 was listed as one of the rules in § 91.905 that was subject to waiver, and the provisions applicable to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE were moved from § 91.175(l) and (m) to § 91.176. Section 91.176 also contains regulatory provisions applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. As the FAA has already permitted EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE to be subject to waiver, the FAA is permitting the regulations applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout also to be subject to waiver. The FAA is revising the introductory text of § 91.175(c) to refer to both paragraph (l) of § 91.175 and § 91.176 because a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE may comply with either the requirements specified in § 91.175(l) or § 91.176(b) prior to March 13, 2018.77 Additionally, § 91.175(d)(1), which references § 91.175(l), will remain in the 14 CFR until March 13, 2018. The FAA is re-designating § 91.175(d)(2) as (d)(3) and is adding a new paragraph (d)(2).78 New paragraph (d)(2) references § 91.176 and refers to paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iii) of § 91.176, which contain the visual references required for descent below 100 feet above the TDZE for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS 76 In a previous rulemaking, ‘‘Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments,’’ 72 FR 31678 (Jun. 7, 2007), the FAA changed most of the references to ‘‘DH or MDA’’ in § 91.175 to ‘‘DA/DH or MDA.’’ However, it did not, as intended, change the references to ‘‘DH or MDA’’ in § 91.175(l). 77 The requirements of paragraph (l) of § 91.175 will expire on March 13, 2018. Beginning on March 13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply with the requirements of § 91.176. Therefore, effective March 13, 2018, the introductory text of § 91.175(c) will be revised to reference only § 91.176. 78 The requirements in paragraph (d)(2) were originally proposed as revisions to current paragraph (d)(1). E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90162 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, respectively.79 The FAA is also revising paragraph (e)(1) of § 91.175 so that it references both paragraph (l) of that section and § 91.176.80 Furthermore, as discussed in section III.E.5.d of this preamble, the FAA is adding paragraph (n) to § 91.175 to provide a transition period for operators conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.81 The FAA is also revising § 135.225, which prescribes IFR takeoff, approach, and landing minimums, to correct a drafting error that occurred when the 2004 EFVS final rule was adopted. This revision was not proposed in the NPRM. The 2004 EFVS final rule, which made revisions to § 135.225, did not account for changes made to that section by ‘‘Regulation of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-Demand Operations’’ (Ownership and OnDemand), a final rule published in September 2003. 68 FR 54520. In Ownership and On-Demand, the FAA established the concept of ‘‘eligible ondemand operations’’ in part 135. This rule amended § 135.225 to allow eligible on-demand operations to conduct instrument approach procedures to airports without weather reporting facilities. Structurally, this exception was added as paragraph (b), existing paragraph (b) became paragraph (c), and (c) became (d). Because the paragraphs shifted down a letter, the cross reference in new § 135.225(d) was changed from (b) to (c). In January 2004, the FAA again amended § 135.225 when the agency published the EFVS final rule. The FAA intended in that rule to clarify the language pertaining to weather minimums on the final approach segment—that is, the rule text that was shifted from paragraph (c) to paragraph (d) by the September 2003 rule. However, the agency did not revise the final EFVS rule document to reflect that the paragraph designation had changed as a result of the September 2003 rule. The EFVS rule replaced paragraph (c) instead of the intended paragraph (d) creating two paragraphs in the section on weather minimums during the final approach segment and deleting the paragraph establishing what the weather must be to begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach. An FAA legal interpretation dated 79 Effective March 13, 2018, the FAA will remove paragraph (d)(1) and re-designate paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) as (d)(1) and (d)(2). 80 Effective March 13, 2018, paragraph (e)(1) will be revised to reference only § 91.176. 81 Effective March 13, 2018, paragraphs (l) and (m) of § 91.175 will expire and paragraph (n) will be removed from § 91.175. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 September 20, 2013, concluded that the current rule language was a result of a drafting error that arose because two final rules were proceeding close in time and the second rule did not account for changes made to § 135.225 by the first rule.82 The agency did not intend for paragraphs (c) and (d) to apply to instrument approaches initiated using the exception given to eligible on-demand operations in paragraph (b). Accordingly, the FAA is now deleting paragraph (d), revising and re-designating current paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and adding new paragraph (c). J. Implementation As originally proposed, for initial implementation, the FAA is authorizing EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities as low as RVR 1,000 feet.83 Several commenters raised concerns about the FAA’s proposed implementation. FedEx Express (FedEx), Gulfstream, GAMA, Elbit Systems of America, Honeywell, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and RTCA commented that the FAA’s statement in the NPRM about the status of RTCA DO–341, ‘‘Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for an Enhanced Flight Vision System to Enable All-Weather Approach, Landing, and Rollout to a Safe Taxi Speed,’’ needs to be updated. They pointed out that DO–341, which contains MASPS for an EFVS that would support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities down to RVR 300 feet, was completed and published on September 26, 2012. The FAA acknowledges that RTCA DO–341 was published on September 82 Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip Kelsey from Mark W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (September 20, 2013). 83 Airworthiness and certification criteria to support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities as low as RVR 1,000 feet were developed through FAA and industry participation on RTCA Special Committee 213 (SC–213). RTCA SC–213 was tasked with developing minimum aviation system performance standards (MASPS) for both EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA incorporated MASPS for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE into AC 20–167, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment. Because the airworthiness requirements to support EFVS operations in very low visibilities would be different than those conducted in a higher visibility range, SC–213 separated the MASPS for touchdown and rollout operations into two activities—MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 1,000 feet and MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 300 feet. The FAA has revised AC 20–167 to incorporate MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 1,000 feet and published them in AC 20–167A. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26, 2012, and that it contains industry recommendations for an EFVS that would support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities down to RVR 300 feet. FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, Elbit Systems of America, and Honeywell expressed concern over the FAA’s proposal to limit initial implementation of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to visibilities of no lower than RVR 1,000 feet. They requested that the FAA clarify that the RVR 1,000 feet visibility limitation is a starting point for EFVS operations to touchdown, but that authorizations to conduct EFVS operations in visibilities of less than RVR 1,000 feet will be developed when EFVS equipment is developed and certified that supports operations in lower visibility conditions. These commenters and Dassault Aviation expressed concern over whether, or when, AC 20–167A would be revised to incorporate the RTCA DO–341 criteria, which contains MASPS for an EFVS that would support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities down to RVR 300 feet. The commenters also stated that if there were no plans to adopt these criteria, they saw no certification path for EFVS equipment that could enable touchdown operations in visibilities of less than RVR 1,000 feet, which could limit investment in technology and adversely affect the benefits of the new EFVS operating rule. Sierra Nevada Corporation specifically requested that the FAA provide a certification path toward lower than 1,000 RVR. The FAA’s statement in the notice that it proposed to limit initial implementation of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to visibilities of no lower than RVR 1,000 feet was not intended to be an end point for EFVS authorizations. The FAA fully expects to develop authorizations and enable a certification path for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in less than RVR 1,000 feet conditions as EFVS technology is developed that will support those operations. The FAA recognizes that MASPS, as well as an operational concept, have been developed through RTCA SC–213 for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in less than RVR 1,000 feet conditions. The FAA intends to include operational and airworthiness certification guidance for those EFVS operations, based in large part on the industry recommendations found in DO–341. The FAA will publish acceptable methods of compliance for these reduced-visibility operations in future revisions of AC 20–167. Any proponent may propose an alternate E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations method of compliance for an EFVS that would support those operations. FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, and Elbit Systems of America noted that there are ongoing FAA/ICAO activities to harmonize requirements for low visibility taxi operations in visibilities as low as RVR 300 feet and that those activities assume EFVS will be an enabler for these operations. These commenters felt the FAA should provide a statement clarifying its intent with respect to low visibility taxi operations using EFVS, especially if the FAA limits EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to RVR 1,000 feet and does not plan to incorporate RTCA DO–341 airworthiness criteria into AC 20–167A. The FAA participates in several activities that seek to harmonize vision system standards, concepts, and practices to the extent practicable. Those activities include the HUD, EVS, SVS, and CVS Subgroup of the ICAO Operations Panel (ICAO HESC), the All Weather Operations Harmonization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AWOH ARC), and the RTCA SC–213. The FAA notes that the EFVS rule does not preclude the use of EFVS during taxi operations and recognizes that using an EFVS can increase situation awareness during such operations. While there is no regulatory requirement in the U.S. for an airport to have an approved Low Visibility Operation/Surface Movement Guidance and Control System Plan when the visibility falls below RVR 1,200 feet, the FAA supports voluntary development of such plans and sees the value in harmonizing those operations to the extent practicable. Dassault Aviation noted that the FAA made reference to RTCA DO–315, which was published on December 16, 2008. Dassault Aviation suggested that the FAA refer to RTCA DO–315B, instead. The FAA’s intent in referencing RTCA DO–315 was to reference the original version of the document, which first contained the MASPS for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA recognizes that DO–315 was revised, and at this time, system design criteria for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout are contained in RTCA DO–315B and DO–341. K. Miscellaneous Issues In this section, the FAA discusses a host of unrelated issues. Some of these issues were raised by commenters. Others resulted from the FAA’s own review of the NPRM. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 1. Minimum Crew Requirements Eurocopter and American Eurocopter stated that the EFVS operation specified in § 91.176(a)(2) implies a new kind of operation that could impact minimum crew requirements. It recommended that the FAA revise §§ 23.1523, 25.1523, 27.1523, 29.1523, 23.1525, 25.1525, 27.1525, and 29.1525 to reflect EFVS operations. The FAA disagrees. The minimum flight crew requirements in 14 CFR parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 are sufficient and effective in establishing the minimum flightcrew for the aircraft; they do not need to be revised to reflect EFVS operations. 2. Failure Modes Boeing commented that the rule does not adequately address failure modes and crew responses. Boeing stated that natural vision appears to be a mitigator for the loss of EFVS during touchdown operations down to RVR 1000 feet. Boeing believes it is circular reasoning to allow EFVS to replace natural vision, and then depend on natural vision in the event of an EFVS failure. In addition, it believes design assurance levels for different technologies, for example ILS and EFVS, need to be similar to avoid biasing in favor of one technology over the other. Boeing recommended that availability and reliability requirements be specified in the rule or in AC 20–167A. Boeing stated these clarifications and revisions are necessary so that designers and operators will know what is expected in failure cases. The FAA finds such revisions unnecessary. The requirements of §§ 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309 apply to failure modes, hazard classifications, and failure probabilities. AC 20–167A further addresses specific system safety considerations. The FAA has defined a means of compliance in AC 20–167A to use EFVS to provide sufficient enhanced flight visibility to complete an instrument approach and landing in visibility conditions as low as RVR 1000 feet. Operationally, EFVS may be used to meet enhanced flight visibility and visual reference requirements for the instrument approach as stated in the NPRM. When the enhanced flight visibility and visual reference requirements of the regulations are met, descent and operation below the DA/DH may continue. However, certification applicants should account for failures of the EFVS in IMC below DA/DH. Generally, as with loss of visibility during conventional instrument approaches, a pilot may need to do a missed approach. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90163 3. EFVS Equipment and Operational Considerations ALPA and an individual commented that current IR-based EFVSs can take several minutes to warm up before they are able to be used in EFVS operations, and stated that operational guidance should account for this delay when an EFVS is powered up just prior to starting an instrument approach. The individual also commented that EFVS operations will require a high degree of system reliability during adverse weather conditions, and that if the EFVS were to malfunction close to the ground, a potentially unsafe condition could exist. The commenters recommended that EFVSs should have an in-flight checking capability to confirm that the system is fully operational prior to beginning an instrument approach procedure. The commenters concerns are already addressed in § 61.66 and AC 90–106. Section 61.66(a) and (b) specify that ground and flight training must address preflight and in-flight preparation of EFVS equipment for EFVS operations. AC 90–106A, Section 5, contains guidance applicable to training and specifies that pilots should be familiar with the warm-up requirements of the system, along with other operational considerations, crew procedures, and crew coordination items. AC 20–167A also contains guidance on EFVS system performance, including system failure notifications. EFVS malfunctions detected by the system, which can adversely affect the normal operation of the EFVS, should be annunciated. At a minimum, specific in-flight failure messages for sensor failure and frozen image should be displayed to the flight crew. 4. Applicability of Previously Collected Data or Data Submitted on the Basis of Similarity In its proposal, the FAA noted that under the 2004 EFVS rule, an EFVS installed on a U.S.-registered aircraft conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE must be installed on that aircraft in accordance with an FAA type design approval, namely a type certificate, amended type certificate, or supplemental type certificate. The FAA also stated that an EFVS that is currently certified to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may not meet the airworthiness standards necessary to support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Section 91.176(a)(1)(i) requires an aircraft to be equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. Thus, the E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90164 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations FAA will require a similar certification process for an EFVS installed on an aircraft used in EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Rockwell Collins asked whether credit could be given during the certification process for previously collected data. For example, if video data was collected during a previous EFVS performance demonstration that was conducted to 100 feet above the TDZE, could the operator take credit for that data with a follow-on demonstration that focused on rollout? It stated it believes this will be an ongoing issue the FAA will need to address in a consistent manner. The FAA cannot assume that an EFVS that was only demonstrated and approved for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE will also be acceptable as a primary system for landing and rollout. Flight demonstrations specific to EFVS operations below 100 feet above the TDZE, landing, and rollout will usually be necessary. Flight test demonstrations will be specifically focused on showing compliance with specific requirements and criteria; hence, the flight test results may not be extrapolated beyond their original purposes. EFVS flight test demonstrations conducted prior to this rulemaking did not attempt to establish the ability to use the EFVS for landing or rollout. Prior flight testing that demonstrated the performance of the sensor in coping with the reported atmospheric conditions, particularly the collection and analysis of data comparing enhanced flight visibility to flight visibility may offer useful information in support of approval of the EFVS for landing and rollout. However, the EFVS should demonstrate that it can be relied on as the primary means for operation below 100 feet above the TDZE and for the landing and rollout. CMC commented that certification credit for demonstrated EFVS performance should be transferable to other installations that have the same EFVS configuration. CMC pointed out that the details of an EFVS installation may differ from one installation to another, and it suggested that the FAA develop a framework for addressing these differences. It stated that credit transfer from one installation to another is not intended to replace all flight tests on a new platform or installation. Instead, the credit transfer would allow for the use of applicable data that was previously collected, in addition to flight test data on the new platform, to form the basis of an EFVS performance demonstration. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 CMC asserted that this framework would enable EFVS suppliers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators to utilize previous flight test investments and thereby significantly reduce certification and performance capability demonstration costs. The applicant may follow existing provisions and practices for establishing ‘‘similarity’’ of an equipment installation from one aircraft to another by providing compliance data approved for the other aircraft. The FAA will follow existing processes to evaluate the applicability of data submitted on the basis of similarity and recognizes the benefit in reducing repetitive certification and performance demonstration costs. However, since EFVS equipment can perform differently on dissimilar aircraft, data used to show the compliance of one installation may not be appropriate for use in demonstrating the compliance of another installation. 5. Public Aircraft Operations In the 2004 EFVS final rule and proposed § 91.176, the FAA did not distinguish between civil aircraft operations and public aircraft operations.84 Thus, both the 2004 EFVS final rule and proposed § 91.176 applied to public aircraft operations, other than the U.S. military. Generally, public aircraft operations are not required to meet the same certification and airworthiness requirements that are imposed on civil aircraft. U.S. military aircraft generally meet military certification and airworthiness standards. Because EFVS operations are conducted in very low visibilities below minimums, the FAA finds that there cannot be a distinction among aircraft used to conduct EFVS operations in the National Airspace System. Each aircraft that is used to conduct an EFVS operation, regardless of whether the operation qualifies as a public aircraft operation, must meet the airworthiness and certification requirements set forth in § 91.176(a) or (b), as applicable to the EFVS operation being conducted (except U.S. military aircraft). Furthermore, each pilot flightcrew member conducting an EFVS operation, regardless of whether the operation qualifies as a public aircraft operation, is required to meet the training and recent flight experience requirements of § 61.66 (except U.S. military pilots). Accordingly, the FAA is adding § 91.176(c) to clarify that public aircraft 84 Section 1.1 defines ‘‘civil aircraft’’ as aircraft other than public aircraft. Therefore, if a regulation applies only to civil aircraft, it does not apply to public aircraft. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 operators who choose to conduct EFVS operations under § 91.176(a) or (b) must meet the previously stated requirements. The FAA recognizes that certain public aircraft operators who choose to conduct EFVS operations under § 91.176 may have aircraft that cannot meet the FAA’s certification and airworthiness requirements. The FAA will consider the ability of these public aircraft to conduct EFVS operations on a case-by-case basis. 6. Qualification Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations in the United States Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii) describes the necessary qualifications for persons conducting EFVS operations in the United States. In the NPRM, proposed § 91.176(a)(2)(vi) would have required, just as § 91.175(l)(5)(ii) required, each required pilot flightcrew member for a foreign person to meet the requirements of the civil aviation authority of the State of the operator. Section 129.1 defines ‘‘foreign person’’ as any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage solely outside the United States. The FAA is concerned that a broader population than that defined by the term ‘‘foreign person’’ in § 129.1 will conduct EFVS operations in the United States. For example, the term ‘‘foreign person’’ failed to capture persons acting as required pilot flightcrew members for foreign air carriers subject to part 129, and any persons serving as required pilot flightcrew members of foreign registered aircraft. The FAA is, therefore, revising proposed § 91.176(a)(2)(vii) to more clearly identify the categories of persons who might conduct EFVS operations in the United States, and to ensure that the regulation adequately describes the necessary qualifications for these persons. Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(A) now requires each person exercising the privileges of a U.S. pilot certificate, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, to be qualified in accordance with part 61, and as applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of parts 91 subpart K, 121, 125, or 135 that apply to the operation. Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(B) now requires each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft to be qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil aviation authority of the State of the E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 operator for the EFVS operation to be conducted. 7. Economic Comments Boeing requested that the FAA explain how it established the number of aircraft used in the economic analysis so that operators can better judge their costs. In order to estimate the total number of affected aircraft for the NPRM, the FAA asked original EFVS equipment manufacturers and aircraft manufacturers for the information. The FAA determined the total number of EFVS-equipped aircraft based on the responses received from those manufacturers. The FAA did not obtain a future equipment estimate from Boeing although the Agency requested that Boeing provide the projected number of aircraft it plans to equip or acquire with EFVS by year from 2012 onward. Boeing also commented that it is unclear in the NPRM whether the estimated paperwork burden is per airplane, per operator, or fleetwide. It stated that it can be deduced by subsequent paragraphs, but clarification of this issue would avoid confusion and lead to a clearer understanding. The estimated paperwork burden of $86,000 covers the entire fleet of EFVSequipped aircraft. An individual stated that this rule could provide benefits to student pilots; however, one challenge would be increased training costs, including EFVS training. The decision to conduct EFVS operations addressed by this rule is voluntary and optional. Therefore, this rule will not impose costs on a trainee who chooses not to conduct EFVS operations in the future. Furthermore, the FAA believes that student pilots typically will not conduct EFVS operations during their initial training. Airbus commented on the training requirement cost in the proposed regulatory evaluation. Airbus stated that the incremental training cost of $750 per pilot does not take into account the benefits and the reduced operational costs that would result from a dual HUD configuration. The FAA did not take dual HUD configurations into account when estimating the incremental training cost of $750 because the FAA sought to use a conservative estimate in the regulatory evaluation. Airbus explained that it cannot comment on certification costs because Airbus has not yet applied for EFVS certification. However, in commenting on the benefits section of the proposed regulatory evaluation, Airbus asked what the FAA expects from an applicant in terms of demonstrating that ‘‘missed VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 approaches and delayed take-offs’’ are minimized.85 The FAA does not expect nor require an EFVS operator to demonstrate benefits in order to utilize extended EFVS capabilities. The FAA believes that enhanced EFVS capabilities will result in unquantifiable benefits, which include the reduction of ‘‘missed approaches and delayed takeoffs.’’ IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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, the 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 impacts of this final rule. We suggest that readers seeking greater details read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify the costs; (2) is not an economically ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 85 Airbus also asked what the FAA meant in terms of airborne sensor performance requirement. The FAA is not responding to this comment because it is outside the scope of the regulatory evaluation. The FAA reopened the comment period on August 20, 2015 to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90165 entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or other private sectors by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below. Parties Potentially Affected by this Rulemaking • Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) producing enhanced flight vision systems (EFVS) or other vision systems, in accordance with parts 23, 25, 27, or 29 • Persons installing EFVS or other vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view • Persons conducting EFVS operations under parts 91, 121, 125, 129, or part 135 • Persons conducting EFVS training Principal Assumptions and Sources of Information • A 10-year period for this analysis is used because this period captures all significant cost impacts • Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management & Budget, Circular A– 4, ‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,’’ October 29, 1992, p. 8, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ circulars/) • An average of 4 pilots assigned to each EFVS-equipped aircraft • OEMs and two operators provided the number of EFVS-equipped aircraft • Operators of some aircraft equipped with older EFVS units will not seek certification for EFVS to touchdown and rollout • The estimation of the incremental training cost per person is approximately $750 based on data collected from training centers • Certification costs of incremental EFVS capabilities to touchdown and rollout are approximately $1 million in the aggregate • Aircraft operations over the next 10 years will grow at about 2.53% per year based on the FAA 2015 forecast (the general aviation turbojet, FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2015)86. Benefits of This Rule Since this final rule is voluntary, the FAA expects those who choose to engage in extended EFVS operations will do so only if the expected benefit to them exceeds the cost they incur. The 86 The FAA forecast for active general aviation (GA) turbine jets is 2.53% for the period of 2015– 2027. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations final rule will enable expanded EFVS operations, which will increase access, efficiency and throughput in low visibility conditions, and minimize potential for missed approaches and delayed take-offs. In addition, EFVS permits low visibility operations on a greater number of approach procedure types. Changes in the U.S. aviation infrastructure,87 such as the transition from incandescent to light-emitting diode (LED) approach lights, could potentially impact the near term benefits for persons using EFVS equipment, but may not impact future benefits of EFVS equipment designed to be interoperable with LEDs. The impact on the benefits is undetermined because both the infrastructure and EFVS capabilities are evolving. Benefits of this final rule will be realized by averting costs related to interrupted flight operations due to low visibility resulting in lost passenger time and extra fuel consumption. Eliminating the requirement to obtain a waiver from Flight Standards when conducting certain EFVS operations will save applicants time for processing paperwork. Cost saving of waiver elimination is reflected in the FAA’s paperwork reduction estimates. Revisions to pilot compartment view requirements for vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view will codify the current practice of issuing special conditions for each of these vision systems by providing industry with known requirements for the certification of these systems under parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. Because the revisions to pilot compartment view requirements will streamline the certification process for these vision systems by eliminating the need to issue special conditions, the FAA and applicants will save the associated time and expense. The full extent of these benefits has not been determined and therefore has not been quantified in this analysis. Costs of This Rule The regulatory costs attributed to the requirements are those above and beyond the current regulation and common practice. The FAA estimates compliance costs as the incremental differences in costs, resulting from the changes in training, equipment and certification requirements. Data were obtained from EFVS original equipment manufacturers, training centers, and two operators. The total incremental cost attributable to the requirements equals nominal training cost ($4.1 million) plus the initial certification cost ($1 million). The compliance cost of the equipment requirements is negligible. The total incremental cost of the final rule is approximately $5.1 million for the ten year period. The present value of that is approximately $4.1 million using a seven percent discount rate. The following table presents the summary of the regulatory costs in 2014 dollars (nominal value) and present value (PV). Nominal cost ($ million) Cost component Present value at 7% ($ million) Present value at 3% ($ million) Training Cost ............................................................................................................................... Certification Cost ......................................................................................................................... Equipment Cost ........................................................................................................................... $4.1 1 $3.1 1 $3.5 1 Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5.1 4.1 4.5 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Benefit/Cost Summary B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The total estimated cost of this final rule over 10 years is approximately $5.1 million nominal value or $4.1 million present value at a 7% discount rate. The annualized cost of this final rule in current dollar value is approximately a half million dollars. These estimated compliance costs will be incurred by those operators who want improved EFVS capabilities. OEMs are already proceeding with efforts to expand EFVS capabilities which, by itself, indicate the benefits of this final rule will likely exceed the costs. The revisions to pilot compartment view requirements for vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view will not impose additional costs from those currently incurred using the special conditions process. The FAA believes the final rule will have benefits exceeding costs based on the likelihood that OEMs and operators will voluntarily incur the costs of the final rule in order to realize expected benefits. 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-forprofit 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. As stated in the initial regulatory flexibility determination, the FAA expects many small entities will benefit from this final rule. The FAA did not receive comments on the initial regulatory flexibility determination. Prior to the final rule, the regulations permitted operators to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The final rule permits operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision from 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown and rollout. Operators under parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 may conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout under the final rule. Accordingly, the final rule may affect firms operating under those parts. The SBA size standard as defined in 13 CFR 121.201, is the largest size that a 87 FAA airport infrastructure decisions are independent from this analysis. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be to remain classified as a small business by the SBA. The SBA size standard in each of the four North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) air transportation industries is 1,500 employees. We estimate that 982 aircraft are currently equipped with EFVS, which includes both large and small entities. Very few part 121 and part 135 operators have installed EFVS in their aircraft. A few part 91 subpart K, 121, or 135 operators have installed EFVS in their aircraft. Most of the operators with EFVS-equipped aircraft are part 91 operators (other than part 91 subpart K operators). Many part 91 operators are small entities. For small entities who have been conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under the old regulations, but who choose not to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, the final rule does not impose additional cost. These small entities are still eligible to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE using their old EFVS equipment, which has already been certified for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. For small entities who have been conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under the old regulations, but who choose to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, the final rule will impose no additional installation costs because most systems installed after 2006 meet the requirements for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The final rule will, however, impose training costs on these small entities. We estimate a onetime training cost of $750 per pilot, which accounts for the cost of training from 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown and rollout. The FAA finds that this estimated training cost, even if for 4 pilots per aircraft, would not have a significant economic impact on the small entities affected by the final rule, because the equipment flown is valued in the tens of millions and these owners voluntarily incur these costs. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the FAA certifies 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 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 the final rule will not impose obstacles to foreign commerce, as foreign exporters do not have to change their current export products to the United States; and that the final rule will impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact. 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 (in 1995 dollars) 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 $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act 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. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This action contains the following information collection requirements: • Section 61.66 requires pilots to keep records of training and recent flight experience. • Section 91.176(a) requires persons conducting operations under part 91 to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with letters of authorization for the use of EFVS. PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90167 Below, we discuss each of these information collection requirements in more detail. The information collections in § 61.66 are already approved in OMB control number 2120–0021. The paperwork burden under § 61.66 comprises documentation of training, recent flight experience, and refresher training. The following analyses were conducted under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501). If some operators eventually choose to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, the provisions of § 61.66 would result in a requirement to keep records of training, recent flight experience, and refresher training. The cost of the annualized paperwork burden is determined by multiplying the number of pilots per EFVS-equipped aircraft (four) by the number of EFVS aircraft (982) and then by the time of complying with the paperwork requirements for each pilot. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations already require flight crewmembers to document and record training and aeronautical experience required to meet recent flight experience requirements. 14 CFR 61.51. Therefore, the paperwork burden resulting from § 61.66 is already accounted for in the cost estimate contained in OMB control number 2120–0021. For ease of readability, we will explain the portion of the total cost estimate that pertains to documenting and recording EFVS recent flight experience. Operators are required to log their approaches using EFVS in 6 months in compliance with the recent flight experience requirements of the new rule. The action of logging each approach in a semiannual frequency can be done manually or electronically. We estimated the time required to complete recordkeeping by flight crewmembers would be about 0.10 hours semiannually or 0.20 hours annually. Assuming 3,928 pilots would be affected by the recordkeeping provisions of the rule, it would require about 786 hours of annual paperwork, and approximately $86,000 nominal cost at the maximum based on the average wage rate of $109 for flight crewmembers from the FAA Form 41. This hourly burden and cost is already accounted for under OMB control number 2120–0021. The information collection in § 91.176(a) expands an existing OMBapproved collection of information that is approved under OMB control number 2120–0005. This collection of information governs information that the FAA collects in order to assure compliance with part 91. The E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 requirements in § 91.176(a) increase the burden of this already-existing collection of information. Section 91.176(a) pertains to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Except as provided in paragraphs 91.176(a)(2)(ix) through 91.176(a)(2)(xii), a person conducting operations under part 91 must conduct the operation in accordance with a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS unless the operation is conducted in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations. A person applying to the FAA for a letter of authorization must submit an application in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator. Approximately 38 EFVS operators will spend about 0.5 hours annually to submit a letter of authorization to the FAA. Each paperwork hour costs approximately $23. Multiplying estimated written requests by average hour per request, we estimate the total annual paperwork burden to be 19 hours. We multiply 19 hours of paperwork burden by an estimated hour wage rate of $23 to derive the estimated annual paperwork cost burden to be $ 437. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted this information collection requirement to OMB for its review. F. International Compatibility and Cooperation In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation. Harmonization. The FAA participates on several vision system committees and working groups where international harmonization of standards, concepts, and practices is accomplished to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 extent practicable. RTCA SC–213 was established December 2006 and is developing operational concepts and MASPS for EFVS, EVS, SVS, and CVS. The FAA, industry representatives from the United States and other countries, and other civil aviation authorities participate on this committee. Eurocae Work Group 79 is also a joint working group with RTCA SC–213. The ICAO HESC focuses on developing definitions, standards, and guidance material pertaining to vision systems for ICAO Annex 6, Parts I–III. The FAA is a member of the ICAO HESC subgroup and actively participates in this committee’s activities and output. In 2012, the FAA established the AWOH ARC. Recognizing that significant issues exist within the international aviation community and regulators regarding interoperability and standardization for low visibility operations, the FAA established the AWOH ARC to identify areas where existing criteria and guidance are inadequate or nonexistent, to develop recommendations for implementing new regulatory criteria and guidance material needed by all stakeholders, and to produce consensus positions for global harmonization. In addition to other low visibility initiatives, the AWOH ARC facilitates international understanding of EFVS operations and provides recommendations for harmonizing those operations. B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use G. Environmental Analysis Comments received may be viewed by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA’s dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). FAA Order 1050.1F 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 paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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. VI. How to Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet— • Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov); • Visit the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa. gov/regulations_policies/ or • Access the Government Printing Office’s Web page at https:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9677. B. Comments Submitted to the Docket C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit https:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ rulemaking/sbre_act/. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) means an installed aircraft system which uses an electronic means to provide a display of the forward external scene topography (the natural or manmade features of a place or region especially in a way to show their relative positions and elevation) through the use of imaging sensors, including but not limited to forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. An EFVS includes the display element, sensors, computers and power supplies, indications, and controls. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 1.2 by adding the abbreviation ‘‘VGSI’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 1 Air transportation. 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 27 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 29 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 61 Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Teachers. § 1.2 14 CFR Part 91 Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. * * * * * VGSI means visual glide slope indicator. * * * * * 14 CFR Part 121 Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, Transportation. 14 CFR Part 125 Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. The Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701. 2. Amend § 1.1 by adding the definition of ‘‘EFVS operation’’ in alphabetical order and by revising the definition for ‘‘Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS)’’ to read as follows: ■ mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 General definitions. * * * * * EFVS operation means an operation in which visibility conditions require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct a rollout. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES 4. The authority citation for part 23 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44704. 14 CFR Part 135 Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. § 1.1 Abbreviations and symbols. 5. Amend § 23.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: ■ § 23.773 Pilot compartment view. * * * * * (c) A vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head updisplay, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following requirements: (1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it, enables the pilot to perform the maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the pilot compartment to meet the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (2) The pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When the vision system displays imagery and any symbology referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery and PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90169 symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. (3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight controls or thrust controls. (4) When the vision system is not in operation it may not restrict the pilot from performing the maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the pilot compartment from meeting the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES 6. The authority citation for part 25 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704. 7. Amend § 25.773 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 25.773 Pilot compartment view. * * * * * (e) Vision systems with transparent displays. A vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following requirements in nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions: (1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it, enables the pilot to perform the maneuvers and normal duties of paragraph (a) of this section. (2) The pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. (3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight controls or thrust controls. (4) When the vision system is not in operation it may not restrict the pilot E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations § 29.773 from performing the maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the pilot compartment from meeting the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 8. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44704. 9. Amend § 27.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: ■ § 27.773 Pilot compartment view. * * * * (c) A vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head updisplay, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following requirements: (1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it, allows the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section. (2) The pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. (3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight and power controls, or their equivalent. (4) When the vision system is not in operation it must permit the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 * 10. The authority citation for part 29 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44704. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS 12. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– 45103, 45301–45302. 13. Amend § 61.57 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read as follows: ■ * ■ 11. Amend § 29.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: * * * * (c) Vision systems with transparent displays. A vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot’s outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following requirements in nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions: (1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference with the pilot’s outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it, allows the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (2) The pilot’s view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. (3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot’s hands from the primary flight and power controls, or their equivalent. (4) When the vision system is not in operation it must permit the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT ■ Pilot compartment view. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 when the pilot is engaged in a flight operation under part 91 or 121 for that certificate holder if the pilot in PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 command complies with §§ 121.436 and 121.439 of this chapter. (3) This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 135 when the pilot is engaged in a flight operation under parts 91 or 135 for that certificate holder if the pilot in command is in compliance with §§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter. * * * * * ■ 14. Add § 61.66 to read as follows: § 61.66 Enhanced Flight Vision System Pilot Requirements (a) Ground training. (1) Except as provided under paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section, no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation conducted under § 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter, or serve as a required pilot flightcrew member during an EFVS operation conducted under § 91.176(a) of this chapter, unless that person— (i) Receives and logs ground training under a training program approved by the Administrator; and (ii) Obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying the person satisfactorily completed the ground training appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. (2) The ground training must include the following subjects: (i) Those portions of this chapter that relate to EFVS flight operations and limitations, including the Airplane Flight Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations; (ii) EFVS sensor imagery, required aircraft flight information, and flight symbology; (iii) EFVS display, controls, modes, features, symbology, annunciations, and associated systems and components; (iv) EFVS sensor performance, sensor limitations, scene interpretation, visual anomalies, and other visual effects; (v) Preflight planning and operational considerations associated with using EFVS during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and landing phases of flight, including the use of EFVS for instrument approaches, operating below DA/DH or MDA, executing missed approaches, landing, rollout, and balked landings; (vi) Weather associated with low visibility conditions and its effect on EFVS performance; (vii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination procedures when using EFVS; and E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations (viii) Interpretation of approach and runway lighting systems and their display characteristics when using an EFVS. (b) Flight training. (1) Except as provided under paragraph (h) of this section, no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation under § 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter unless that person— (i) Receives and logs flight training for the EFVS operation under a training program approved by the Administrator; and (ii) Obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying the person is proficient in the use of EFVS in the category of aircraft in which the training was provided for the EFVS operation to be conducted. (2) Flight training must include the following tasks: (i) Preflight and inflight preparation of EFVS equipment for EFVS operations, including EFVS setup and use of display, controls, modes and associated systems, and adjustments for brightness and contrast under day and night conditions; (ii) Proper piloting techniques associated with using EFVS during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and rollout, including missed approaches and balked landings; (iii) Proper piloting techniques for the use of EFVS during instrument approaches, to include operations below DA/DH or MDA as applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted, under both day and night conditions; (iv) Determining enhanced flight visibility; (v) Identifying required visual references appropriate to EFVS operations; (vi) Transitioning from EFVS sensor imagery to natural vision acquisition of required visual references and the runway environment; (vii) Using EFVS sensor imagery, required aircraft flight information, and flight symbology to touchdown and rollout, if the person receiving training will conduct EFVS operations under § 91.176(a) of this chapter; and (viii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination procedures when using an EFVS. (c) Supplementary EFVS training. A person qualified to conduct an EFVS operation under § 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter who seeks to conduct an additional EFVS operation for which that person has not received training must— (1) Receive and log the ground and flight training required by paragraphs (a) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 and (b) of this section, under a training program approved by the Administrator, appropriate to the additional EFVS operation to be conducted; and (2) Obtain a logbook or training record endorsement from the authorized training provider certifying the person is proficient in the use of EFVS in the category of aircraft in which the training was provided for the EFVS operation to be conducted. (d) Recent flight experience: EFVS. Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section, no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation unless, within 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performs and logs six instrument approaches as the sole manipulator of the controls using an EFVS under any weather conditions in the category of aircraft for which the person seeks the EFVS privilege. The instrument approaches may be performed in day or night conditions; and (1) One approach must terminate in a full stop landing; and (2) For persons authorized to exercise the privileges of § 91.176(a), the full stop landing must be conducted using the EFVS. (e) EFVS refresher training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) of this section for more than six calendar months may reestablish EFVS currency only by satisfactorily completing an approved EFVS refresher course in the category of aircraft for which the person seeks the EFVS privilege. The EFVS refresher course must consist of the subjects and tasks listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted. (2) The EFVS refresher course must be conducted by an authorized training provider whose instructor meets the training requirements of this section and, if conducting EFVS operations in an aircraft, the recent flight experience requirements of this section. (f) Military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. (1) The training requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section applicable to EFVS operations conducted under § 91.176(a) of this chapter do not apply to a military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that person documents satisfactory completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout by the U.S. Armed Forces. PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90171 (2) The training requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section applicable to EFVS operations conducted under § 91.176(b) of this chapter do not apply to a military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that person documents satisfactory completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation by the U.S. Armed Forces. (3) A military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) of this section if he or she documents satisfactory completion of an EFVS proficiency check in the U.S. Armed Forces within 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, the check was conducted by a person authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to administer the check, and the person receiving the check was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at the time the check was administered. (g) Use of full flight simulators. A level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS may be used to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements of this section. The FFS must be evaluated and qualified for EFVS operations by the Administrator, and must be: (1) Qualified and maintained in accordance with part 60 of this chapter, or a previously qualified device, as permitted in accordance with § 60.17 of this chapter; (2) Approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers to be conducted; and (3) Equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet the flight training requirements of this section. (h) Exceptions. (1) A person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation without meeting the requirements of this section in the following circumstances: (i) When receiving flight training to meet the requirements of this section under an approved training program, provided the instructor meets the requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft for which the training is being conducted. (ii) During an EFVS operation performed in the course of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, provided another individual is serving as pilot in command of the aircraft during the EFVS operation and that individual meets the requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in the E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90172 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations category of aircraft in which the flight is being conducted. (iii) During an EFVS operation performed in the course of completing EFVS refresher training in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, provided the instructor providing the refresher training meets the requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft for which the training is being conducted. (2) The requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply if a person is conducting a flight or series of flights in an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations, provided the person has knowledge of the subjects specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and has experience with the tasks specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted. (3) The requirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to a pilot who: (i) Is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121, 125, or 135 when the pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for that certificate holder under part 91, 121, 125, or 135, as applicable, provided the pilot conducts the operation in accordance with the certificate holder’s operations specifications for EFVS operations; (ii) Is employed by a person who holds a letter of deviation authority issued under § 125.3 of this chapter when the pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for that person under part 125, provided the pilot is conducting the operation in accordance with that person’s letter of authorization for EFVS operations; or (iii) Is employed by a fractional ownership program manager to conduct operations under part 91 subpart K when the pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for that program manager under part 91, provided the pilot is conducting the operation in accordance with the program manager’s management specifications for EFVS operations. (4) The requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply if a person is conducting EFVS operations under § 91.176(b) of this chapter and that person documents that prior to March 13, 2018, that person satisfactorily completed ground and flight training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 (5) The requirements specified in this section do not apply if a person is conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation in accordance with the requirements of § 91.175(l) and (m) of this chapter prior to March 13, 2018. § 61.66 [Amended] 15. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 61.66 by removing paragraph (h)(5). ■ PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 16. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 17. Amend § 91.175 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3)(vi); ■ b. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d)(3) and revise it; ■ c. Add new paragraph (d)(2); ■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and ■ e. Add paragraph (n). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ ■ § 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. * * * * * (c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section or § 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/ DH unless— * * * * * (3) * * * (vi) The visual glideslope indicator. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) For operations conducted under § 91.176 of this part, the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) or (b)(3)(iii), as applicable, of that section are not met; or (3) For all other operations under this part and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used. (e) * * * (1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l) of this section or § 91.176 of this chapter, and the requirements of that paragraph or PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 section are not met at either of the following times: * * * * * (n) Before March 13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation must comply with either the requirements of paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section or with the requirements of § 91.176(b) of this part. Beginning on March 13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation must comply with the requirements of § 91.176(b) of this part. The requirements of paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section will expire on March 13, 2018. ■ 18. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 91.175 as follows: ■ a. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text; ■ b. Remove paragraph (d)(1); ■ c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) as (d)(1) and (2), respectively; ■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and ■ e. Remove paragraphs (l), (m), and (n). The revisions read as follows: § 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. * * * * * (c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in § 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless— * * * * * (e) * * * (1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section or § 91.176 of this part, and the requirements of that paragraph or section are not met at either of the following times: * * * * * ■ 19. Add § 91.176 to read as follows: § 91.176 Straight-in landing operations below DA/DH or MDA using an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) under IFR. (a) EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator to use an MDA as a DA/DH with vertical navigation on an instrument approach procedure, or unless paragraph (d) of this section applies, no person may conduct an EFVS operation in an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout unless the minimums used for the particular approach procedure being flown include a DA or DH, and the following requirements are met: (1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be equipped with an operable EFVS that E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. The EFVS must: (A) Have an electronic means to provide a display of the forward external scene topography (the applicable natural or manmade features of a place or region especially in a way to show their relative positions and elevation) through the use of imaging sensors, including but not limited to forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. (B) Present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path. Aircraft flight information and flight symbology must consist of at least airspeed, vertical speed, aircraft attitude, heading, altitude, height above ground level such as that provided by a radio altimeter or other device capable of providing equivalent performance, command guidance as appropriate for the approach to be flown, path deviation indications, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue. Additionally, for aircraft other than rotorcraft, the EFVS must display flare prompt or flare guidance. (C) Present the displayed EFVS sensor imagery, attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, and other cues, which are referenced to the EFVS sensor imagery and external scene topography, so that they are aligned with, and scaled to, the external view. (D) Display the flight path angle reference cue with a pitch scale. The flight path angle reference cue must be selectable by the pilot to the desired descent angle for the approach and be sufficient to monitor the vertical flight path of the aircraft. (E) Display the EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology such that they do not adversely obscure the pilot’s outside view or field of view through the cockpit window. (F) Have display characteristics, dynamics, and cues that are suitable for manual control of the aircraft to touchdown in the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing and during rollout. (ii) When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the aircraft must be equipped with a display that provides the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor imagery. Any symbology displayed may not adversely obscure VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 the sensor imagery of the runway environment. (2) Operations. (i) The pilot conducting the EFVS operation may not use circling minimums. (ii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must have adequate knowledge of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the procedures to be used. (iii) The aircraft must be equipped with, and the pilot flying must use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (iv) When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the pilot monitoring must use the display specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to monitor and assess the safe conduct of the approach, landing, and rollout. (v) The aircraft must continuously be in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers. (vi) The descent rate must allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. (vii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must meet the following requirements— (A) A person exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate issued under this chapter, any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member for a part 121, 125, or 135 operator, must be qualified in accordance with part 61 and, as applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of subpart K of this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter that apply to the operation; or (B) Each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft, must be qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil aviation authority of the State of the operator for the EFVS operation to be conducted. (viii) A person conducting operations under this part must conduct the operation in accordance with a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS unless the operation is conducted in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations, or the operation is being conducted by a person otherwise authorized to conduct EFVS operations under paragraphs (a)(2)(ix) through (xii) of this section. A person applying to the PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90173 FAA for a letter of authorization must submit an application in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator. (ix) A person conducting operations under subpart K of this part must conduct the operation in accordance with management specifications authorizing the use of EFVS. (x) A person conducting operations under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications authorizing the use of EFVS. (xi) A person conducting operations under part 125 of this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a holder of a part 125 letter of deviation authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS. (xii) A person conducting an EFVS operation during an authorized Category II or Category III operation must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications, management specifications, or a letter of authorization authorizing EFVS operations during authorized Category II or Category III operations. (3) Visibility and visual reference requirements. No pilot operating under this section or §§ 121.651, 125.381, or 135.225 of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and land unless: (i) The pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used. (ii) From the authorized DA/DH to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing, any approach light system or both the runway threshold and the touchdown zone are distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot using an EFVS. (A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one of the following visual references— (1) The beginning of the runway landing surface; (2) The threshold lights; or (3) The runway end identifier lights. (B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one of the following visual references— (1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; (2) The touchdown zone lights; (3) The touchdown zone markings; or (4) The runway lights. (iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing and below that E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 90174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations altitude, the enhanced flight visibility using EFVS must be sufficient for one of the following visual references to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot— (A) The runway threshold; (B) The lights or markings of the threshold; (C) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; or (D) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone. (4) Additional requirements. The Administrator may prescribe additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics, operational procedures, or approach characteristics. These requirements will be specified in an operator’s operations specifications, management specifications, or letter of authorization authorizing the use of EFVS. (b) EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation. Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may conduct an EFVS operation in an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the authorized DA/ DH or MDA to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation unless the following requirements are met: (1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. (ii) The EFVS must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of this section, but need not present flare prompt, flare guidance, or height above ground level. (2) Operations. (i) The pilot conducting the EFVS operation may not use circling minimums. (ii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must have adequate knowledge of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the procedures to be used. (iii) The aircraft must be equipped with, and the pilot flying must use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (iv) The aircraft must continuously be in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers. (v) For operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, the descent rate must allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. (vi) Each required pilot flightcrew member must meet the following requirements— VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 (A) A person exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate issued under this chapter, any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member for a part 121, 125, or 135 operator, must be qualified in accordance with part 61 and, as applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of subpart K of this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter that apply to the operation; or (B) Each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft, must be qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil aviation authority of the State of the operator for the EFVS operation to be conducted. (vii) A person conducting operations under subpart K of this part must conduct the operation in accordance with management specifications authorizing the use of EFVS. (viii) A person conducting operations under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications authorizing the use of EFVS. (ix) A person conducting operations under part 125 of this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a holder of a part 125 letter of deviation authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS. (x) A person conducting an EFVS operation during an authorized Category II or Category III operation must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications, management specifications, or a letter of authorization authorizing EFVS operations during authorized Category II or Category III operations. (3) Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements. No pilot operating under this section or § 121.651, § 125.381, or § 135.225 of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and land unless: (i) The pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used. (ii) From the authorized MDA or DA/ DH to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing, any approach light system or both the runway threshold and the touchdown zone are distinctly PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 visible and identifiable to the pilot using an EFVS. (A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one of the following visual references– (1) The beginning of the runway landing surface; (2) The threshold lights; or (3) The runway end identifier lights. (B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one of the following visual references— (1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; (2) The touchdown zone lights; (3) The touchdown zone markings; or (4) The runway lights. (iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude, the flight visibility must be sufficient for— (A) The runway threshold; (B) The lights or markings of the threshold; (C) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; or (D) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone. (4) Compliance Date. Beginning on March 13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. (c) Public aircraft certification and training requirements. A public aircraft operator, other than the U.S. military, may conduct an EFVS operation under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section only if: (1) The aircraft meets all of the civil certification and airworthiness requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this section, as applicable to the EFVS operation to be conducted; and (2) The pilot flightcrew member, or any other person who manipulates the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation, meets the training, recent flight experience and refresher training requirements of § 61.66 of this chapter applicable to EFVS operations. (d) Exception for Experimental Aircraft. The requirement to use an EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2)(iii) of this section does not apply to operations conducted in an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with regulations, provided the Administrator has determined that the operations can be conducted safely in accordance with operating limitations issued for that purpose. E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20. Amend § 91.189 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 91.189 Category II and III operations: General operating rules. * * * * * (d) Except as provided in § 91.176 of this part or unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no pilot operating an aircraft in a Category II or Category III approach that provides and requires the use of a DA/DH may continue the approach below the authorized decision height unless the following conditions are met: * * * * * (e) Except as provided in § 91.176 of this part or unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, each pilot operating an aircraft shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach whenever, prior to touchdown, the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section are not met. * * * * * ■ 21. Amend § 91.905 by adding an entry for § 91.176 in numerical order to read as follows: § 91.905 Sec. * * List of rules subject to waivers. * * * 91.176 Operations below DA/DH or MDA using an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) under IFR. * * * * * 22. Amend § 91.1039 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums. * * * * (e) Except as provided in §§ 91.175(l) or 91.176 of this chapter, each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at an airport must comply with applicable instrument approach procedures and takeoff and landing weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over the airport. In addition, no pilot may take off at that airport when the visibility is less than 600 feet, unless otherwise authorized in the program manager’s management specifications for EFVS operations. ■ 23. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 91.1039 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 * § 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums. * * * * * (e) Except as provided in § 91.176 of this chapter, each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at an airport must comply with applicable instrument approach procedures and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 takeoff and landing weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over the airport. In addition, no pilot may take off at that airport when the visibility is less than 600 feet, unless otherwise authorized in the program manager’s management specifications for EFVS operations. ■ 24. Amend § 91.1065 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 91.1065 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements. * * * * * (g) If the program manager is authorized to conduct EFVS operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) of this section must include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder is authorized to conduct. PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 25. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note). 26. Amend § 121.651 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c) introductory text, and (d) introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (f) and (g), and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR: All certificate holders. * * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, no pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure— (c) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating below-minimum conditions, may continue the approach to DA/DH or MDA. Upon reaching DA/DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DA/DH or MDA if either the requirements of § 91.175(l) or § 91.176 of this chapter, or the following requirements are met: * * * * * (d) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure other than a PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 90175 Category II or Category III procedure at an airport when the visibility is less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the airport is served by an operative ILS and an operative PAR, and both are used by the pilot. However, no pilot may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless the requirements of § 91.175(l) or § 91.176 of this chapter, or the following requirements are met: * * * * * (e) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure, or continue that approach procedure, at an airport when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the pilot uses an operable EFVS in accordance with § 91.176 of this chapter and the certificate holder’s operations specifications for EFVS operations. * * * * * 27. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 121.651 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (d) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR: All certificate holders. * * * * * (c) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating below-minimum conditions, may continue the approach to DA/DH or MDA. Upon reaching DA/DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DA/DH or MDA if either the requirements of § 91.176 of this chapter, or the following requirements are met: * * * * * (d) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure other than a Category II or Category III procedure at an airport when the visibility is less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the airport is served by an operative ILS and an operative PAR, and both are used by the pilot. However, no pilot may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless the requirements of § 91.176 of this chapter, or the following requirements are met: * * * * * 28. In appendix F to part 121, amend the Table by adding new entries III(c)(5), V(g), and V(h) to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 90176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Appendix F to Part 121—Proficiency Check Requirements * * * * * Required Maneuvers/procedures * Simulated instrument conditions * * Permitted Visual simulator Inflight * Nonvisual simulator Training device Waiver provisions of § 121.441(d) * * * III. Instrument procedures: * * * (c) ILS and other instrument approaches. There must be the following: * * * * * * * (5) For each type of EFVS operation the certificate holder is authorized to conduct, at least one instrument approach must be made using an EFVS. ................................................................... * * * * * * B * *B .................... * .................... * .................... ...................... * * * * * * * * V. Landings and Approaches to Landings— * * * (g) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, at least one instrument approach to a landing must be made using an EFVS, including the use of enhanced flight vision from 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation to touchdown and rollout .................................. (h) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation, at least one instrument approach to a landing must be made using an EFVS, including the transition from enhanced flight vision to natural vision at 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation ........................................................................... * * * 29. In appendix H to part 121, amend ‘‘Level B Training and Checking Permitted’’ by revising paragraph 3. to read as follows: Appendix H to Part 121—Advanced Simulation * * * * Level B * * * * mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 3. Except for EFVS operations, landings in a proficiency check without the landing on the line requirements (§ 121.441). * * *B B *B * PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT of this section must include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder is authorized to conduct. ■ 32. Revise § 125.325 to read as follows: Except as specified in §§ 91.175(l) or 91.176 of this chapter, no person may make an instrument approach at an airport except in accordance with IFR weather minimums and unless the type of instrument approach procedure to be used is listed in the certificate holder’s operations specifications. ■ 33. Effective March 13, 2018, revise § 125.325 to read as follows: ■ Training and Checking Permitted * B 30. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: ■ * * * * * Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722. 31. Amend § 125.287 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: ■ § 125.287 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements. * * * * * (g) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 § 125.325 Instrument approach procedures and IFR landing minimums. § 125.325 Instrument approach procedures and IFR landing minimums. Except as specified in § 91.176 of this chapter, no person may make an E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations instrument approach at an airport except in accordance with IFR weather minimums and unless the type of instrument approach procedure to be used is listed in the certificate holder’s operations specifications. 34. Amend § 125.381 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c) introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: ■ § 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR. (a) * * * (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, land an airplane under IFR. (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, no pilot may execute an instrument approach procedure if the latest reported visibility is less than the landing minimums specified in the certificate holder’s operations specifications. (c) A pilot who initiates an instrument approach procedure based on a weather report that indicates that the specified visibility minimums exist and subsequently receives another weather report that indicates that conditions are below the minimum requirements, may continue the approach only if the requirements of § 91.175(l) or § 91.176 of this chapter, or both of the following conditions are met— * * * * * (d) A pilot may execute an instrument approach procedure, or continue the approach, at an airport when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the pilot uses an operable EFVS in accordance with § 91.176 of this chapter and the certificate holder’s operations specifications for EFVS operations, or for a holder of a part 125 letter of deviation authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS. 35. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 125.381 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3 * * * * * (c) A pilot who initiates an instrument approach procedure based on a weather report that indicates that the specified visibility minimums exist and subsequently receives another weather report that indicates that conditions are below the minimum requirements, may continue the approach only if either the requirements of § 91.176 of this chapter, or the following conditions are met— * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:56 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 241001 PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 36. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– 45105; Public Law 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730). 37. Amend § 135.225 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text; ■ b. Remove paragraph (d); ■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and revise it; ■ d. Add new paragraph (c); and ■ e. Add paragraph (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums. (a) Except to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (j) of this section, no pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless— (b) A pilot conducting an eligible ondemand operation may begin and conduct an instrument approach procedure to an airport that does not have a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator if— * * * * * (c) Except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, no pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless the latest weather reported by the facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section indicates that weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that procedure. (d) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (c) of this section, and receives a later weather report indicating that conditions have worsened to below the minimum requirements, may continue the approach only if the requirements of § 91.175(l) of this chapter, paragraph (j) of this section, or both of the following conditions are met— (1) The later weather report is received when the aircraft is in one of the following approach phases: (i) The aircraft is on an ILS final approach and has passed the final approach fix; (ii) The aircraft is on an ASR or PAR final approach and has been turned over to the final approach controller; or PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 90177 (iii) The aircraft is on a non-precision final approach and the aircraft— (A) Has passed the appropriate facility or final approach fix; or (B) Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure; and (2) The pilot in command finds, on reaching the authorized MDA or DA/ DH, that the actual weather conditions are at or above the minimums prescribed for the procedure being used. * * * * * (j) A pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure, or continue an approach, at an airport when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the pilot uses an operable EFVS in accordance with § 91.176 of this chapter and the certificate holder’s operations specifications for EFVS operations. 38. Effective March 13, 2018, amend § 135.225 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums. * * * * * (d) Except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, a pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (c) of this section, and receives a later weather report indicating that conditions have worsened to below the minimum requirements, may continue the approach only if the following conditions are met— * * * * * 39. Amend § 135.293 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: ■ § 135.293 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements. * * * * * (i) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) of this section must include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder is authorized to conduct. Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2016. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016–28714 Filed 12–12–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM 13DER3

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90126-90177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28714]

[[Page 90125]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 239

December 13, 2016

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 1, 23, 25, et al.

Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight
Vision Systems and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision
Systems; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 90126]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 23, 25, 27, 29, 61, 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2013-0485; Amdt. Nos. 1-70, 23-63, 25-144, 27-48, 29-
56, 61-139, 91-345, 121-376, 125-66, and 135-135]
RIN 2120-AJ94

Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements
for Vision Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Prior to this final rule, persons could only use an Enhanced
Flight Vision System (EFVS) in lieu of natural vision to descend below
the decision altitude, decision height, or minimum descent altitude
(DA/DH or MDA) down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation
(TDZE) using certain straight-in landing instrument approach procedures
(IAPs). This final rule permits operators to use an EFVS in lieu of
natural vision to continue descending from 100 feet above the TDZE to
the runway and to land on certain straight-in IAPs under instrument
flight rules (IFR). This final rule also revises and relocates the
regulations that permit operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural
vision to descend to 100 feet above the TDZE using certain straight-in
IAPs. Additionally, this final rule addresses provisions that permit
operators who conduct EFVS operations under parts 121, 125, or 135 to
use EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR,
and revises the regulations for those operators to initiate and
continue an approach, when the destination airport weather is below
authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended landing. This
final rule establishes pilot training and recent flight experience
requirements for operators who use EFVS in lieu of natural vision to
descend below the DA/DH or MDA. EFVS-equipped aircraft conducting
operations to touchdown and rollout are required to meet additional
airworthiness requirements. This final rule also revises pilot
compartment view certification requirements for vision systems using a
transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view. The final rule takes advantage of advanced vision capabilities,
thereby achieving the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) goals of increasing access, efficiency, and throughput at
many airports when low visibility is the limiting factor. Additionally,
it enables EFVS operations in reduced visibilities on a greater number
of approach procedure types while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety.

DATES: The final rule is effective March 13, 2017, except for the
amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.66 (amendatory instruction no. 15), 91.175
(amendatory instruction no. 18), 91.1039 (amendatory instruction no.
23), 121.651 (amendatory instruction no. 27), 125.325 (amendatory
instruction no. 33), 125.381 (amendatory instruction no. 35), and
135.225 (amendatory instruction no. 38), which are effective March 13,
2018.

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 action, contact Terry King, Flight Technologies and Procedures
Division, AFS-400, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8790; email Terry.King@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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 49
U.S.C. 40103, which vests the Administrator with broad authority to
prescribe regulations to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC--Advisory circular
ADS-B--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
AFM--Airplane flight manual
AFMS--Airplane flight manual supplement
AIM--Aeronautical Information Manual
ALPA--Airline Pilots Association
APV--Approach (procedure) with vertical guidance
ASR--Airport surveillance radar
ATC--Air Traffic Control
AWO--All weather operations
AWOH ARC--All Weather Operations Harmonization Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
CAA--Civil aviation authority
CVS--Combined Vision System
DA--Decision altitude
DH--Decision height
EASA--European Aviation Safety Agency
EFVS--Enhanced Flight Vision System
EVS--Enhanced Vision System
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FAF--Final approach fix
FFS--Full flight simulator
FPARC--Flight path angle reference cue
FPV--Flight path vector
FSB--Flight Standardization Board
GAMA--General Aviation Manufacturers Association
GPS--Global positioning system
HAI--Helicopter Association International
HGS--Head Up Guidance System
HMD--Head mounted display
HUD--Head up display
IAP--Instrument approach procedure
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
ICAO HESC--International Civil Aviation Organization HUD, EVS, SVS,
and CVS Subgroup
IFR--Instrument flight rules
ILS--Instrument landing system
IMC--Instrument meteorological conditions
IR--Infrared
LED--Light emitting diode
LIDAR--Laser imaging detection and ranging
LOA--Letter of authorization
LODA--Letter of deviation authority
LPV--Localizer performance with vertical guidance
MASPS--Minimum aviation system performance standards
MDA--Minimum descent altitude
MSpec--Management specifications
NextGen--Next Generation Air Transportation System
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NVG--Night vision goggle
OEM--Original equipment manufacturer
OpSpec--Operations specifications
PAR--Precision approach radar
PCG--Pilot/Controller Glossary
PIC--Pilot in Command
RNAV--Area navigation
RNP--Required navigation performance
RVR--Runway visual range
SNPRM--Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TERPS--Terminal instrument procedures
TDZE--Touchdown Zone Elevation
VFR--Visual flight rules
VNAV--Vertical navigation
WAAS--Wide area augmentation system

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Final Rule
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. Related Actions
C. Summary of the NPRM

[[Page 90127]]

D. General Overview of Comments
III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public Comments
A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and Add a Definition for EFVS
Operation (Sec. 1.1)
B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in Part 91 in a New Section
(Sec. 91.176)
C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility and Visual Reference
Requirements for EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout (Sec.
91.176(a))
1. Equipment Requirements
a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors
b. Head Up Presentation Requirement for EFVS Operations
c. EFVS Terminology
d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for Foreign-Registered Aircraft
e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display
f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue (FPARC)
g. Requirement to Display Height Above Ground Level
h. Requirement to Display Flare Prompt or Flare Guidance
i. Pilot Monitoring Display
j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to Rotorcraft Operations
k. Requirement to Obtain a Certificate of Waiver When Conducting
Certain EFVS Operations
2. Operating Requirements
a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS Operations
b. Touchdown Zone
c. Definition of ``EFVS Operation'' and Underlying Operational
Concepts
d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and EFVS Operations
e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 Operators To Conduct EFVS
Operations to Touchdown and Rollout
f. International EFVS Operations
g. EFVS Authorizations
h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations
i. Combined Vision Systems
j. Use of the Term ``EFVS'' in Rule Language
k. Approach Plates and EFVS Operations
l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts
m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS Operating Requirements
n. Opposing Comments on the FAA's Proposal
3. Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements
a. Visual References Below 100 Feet Above the TDZE During EFVS
Operations to Touchdown and Rollout
b. Enhanced Flight Visibility Requirement During EFVS Operations
to 100 Feet Above the TDZE
c. Visual References for Rollout
d. Controlling Runway Visual Range (RVR) Values
e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative Visual Aids
f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility Requirements of
Sec. Sec. 91.155 and 91.157 During Rotorcraft Operations
D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet
Above the TDZE (Sec. 91.176(b))
1. Methods for Conducting Approaches During EFVS Operations to
100 Feet Above the TDZE
E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, and Refresher Training
Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec. 61.66)
1. Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations
(Sec. 61.66(a), (b) and (c))
a. Separate Training for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the
TDZE and EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout
b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training
c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an EFVS in Flight Operations
d. Revisions To Clarify Training Requirements in Sec. 61.66(a),
(b) and (c)
2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS Refresher Training for
Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec. 61.66(d) and (e))
3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience
4. Persons Authorized to Conduct EFVS Refresher Training
5. Revisions to Sec. 61.57
6. Military Pilots and Former Military Pilots in the U.S. Armed
Forces (Sec. 61.66(f))
7. Use of Full Flight Simulators (Sec. 61.66(g))
8. Exceptions (Sec. 61.66(h))
a. Manipulating the Controls (Sec. 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iii)
b. Exception to Ground and Flight Training (Sec. 61.66(h)(2))
c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience Requirements (Sec.
61.66(h)(3))
d. Grandfather Clause (Sec. 61.66(h)(4))
F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a Flight Using EFVS-
Equipped Aircraft When the Reported or Forecast Visibility at the
Destination Airport is Below Authorized Minimums (Sec. Sec.
121.613, 125.361, 135.219) and Initiating or Continuing an Approach
Using EFVS-Equipped Aircraft When the Destination Airport Visibility
is Below Authorized Minimums (Sec. Sec. 121.651, 125.325, 125.381,
135.225)
G. Revisions to Category II and III General Operating Rules to
Permit the Use of an EFVS (Sec. 91.189)
H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and Airworthiness Standards for
Vision Systems With Transparent Displays Located in the Pilot's
Outside Field of View (Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and
29.773)
1. Vision Systems and Display Methods Addressed by Sec. Sec.
23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773
2. Pilot's Outside View--Terminology and Compensation for
Interference
3. Undistorted View Requirements
4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and Head Mounted Display
(HMD) Considerations
5. Requirement To Provide a Means of Immediate Deactivation and
Reactivation of Vision System Imagery
6. Vision Systems and Requirements Applicable to Duties and
Maneuvers
7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS Installations
8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation and Bird Strike
Requirements
I. Related and Conforming Amendments (Sec. Sec. 91.175, 91.905,
and 135.225)
J. Implementation
K. Miscellaneous Issues
1. Minimum Crew Requirements
2. Failure Modes
3. EFVS Equipment and Operational Considerations
4. Applicability of Previously Collected Data or Data Submitted
on the Basis of Similarity
5. Public Aircraft Operations
6. Qualification Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS
Operations in the United States
7. Economic Comments
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
G. Environmental Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132. Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. How to Obtain Additional Information
A. Rulemaking Documents
B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Overview of Final Rule

This final rule modifies the requirements for EFVS operations. The
FAA is revising the definition of an EFVS in Sec. 1.1 to describe the
components of an EFVS and to specify that an EFVS is an ``installed
aircraft system'' rather than an ``installed airborne system'' because
some EFVS operations may be conducted on the surface as well as
airborne. The FAA is also adding a new term, ``EFVS operation,'' to
Sec. 1.1.
The FAA is creating new Sec. 91.176, which contains the operating
rules for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and for EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA is relocating to Sec.
91.176(b) the regulations for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the
TDZE, which were previously located in Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), and is
revising and restructuring these regulations. Prior to this final rule,
persons could only use EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below
DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE using certain straight-in
landing IAPs. Section 91.176(a) now expands the existing operational
capability by permitting persons to use an EFVS in lieu of natural
vision to continue descending below 100 feet above the TDZE to landing
and rollout. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 91.176 are organized into
three main areas--equipment requirements, operating requirements, and
visibility and visual reference requirements. The equipment,

[[Page 90128]]

operating, and visibility requirements in paragraph (a) for conducting
an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout are different from the
requirements in paragraph (b) for conducting an EFVS operation to 100
feet above the TDZE. In addition, persons are permitted to use two new
visual references for descent below 100 feet above the TDZE for EFVS
operations conducted under both Sec. 91.176(a) and (b). The FAA is
also amending the operating rules for Category II and Category III
operations in Sec. 91.189 to permit the use of EFVS in lieu of natural
vision during the performance of those operations.
This final rule also establishes training and recent flight
experience requirements for persons conducting EFVS operations.\1\ The
ground and flight training requirements in Sec. 61.66(a), (b) and (c)
apply to pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE
as well as to pilots conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout. A pilot must comply with the training provisions of part 61 in
addition to the training provisions of the part under which the
operation is conducted, which may require additional ground and flight
training appropriate to the particular assignment of the pilot
flightcrew member. Recent flight experience and refresher training
requirements for persons conducting EFVS operations are located in
Sec. 61.66(d) and (e). Additionally, Sec. 61.66(f) contains the
requirements applicable to military and former military pilots in the
U.S. Armed Forces who wish to conduct EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ As further discussed in section III.E of this preamble, the
FAA has reorganized the training, recent flight experience, and
proficiency requirements that were proposed in Sec. Sec. 61.31 and
61.57 and consolidated them in new Sec. 61.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is revising Sec. Sec. 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and
135.225 to permit operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft to initiate or
continue an approach when the destination airport visibility is below
authorized minimums. The FAA is also revising Sec. 91.1039(e) to
permit part 91 subpart K operators to conduct takeoff operations using
EFVS when the visibility is less than 600 feet in accordance with the
certificate holders' Management Specifications (MSpec) for EFVS
operations, and to clarify that an EFVS operation is permitted when the
landing weather minimums are less than those prescribed by the
authority having jurisdiction over the airport.
Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) through (xi) requires operators
conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout under part 91, 121,
125 (including part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) holders),
129, or 135 to obtain FAA authorization to conduct those operations.
Section 91.176(b)(2)(vii) through (ix) requires operators conducting
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under part 91 subpart K,
121, 125 (including part 125 LODA holders), or 135 to obtain FAA
authorization to conduct those operations. Under Sec. 91.176(b)(2),
part 91 operators, other than those operating under part 91 subpart K,
are not required to obtain FAA authorization to conduct EFVS operations
to 100 feet above the TDZE.
The FAA now revises the pilot compartment view rules contained in
Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 to establish
airworthiness standards for vision systems with a transparent display
surface located in the pilot's outside field of view, such as a head up
display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. This final
rule eliminates the current need to issue special conditions for vision
system video on a head up display. The FAA notes that its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ``Revision of Airworthiness Standards for
Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes,'' 81 FR
13452 (Mar. 14, 2016), contains proposals that significantly
restructure part 23. Because the part 23 NPRM is pending, references to
part 23 in this final rule refer to existing part 23, and revisions to
the pilot compartment view rules contained in Sec. Sec. 23.773,
25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 include the general requirements that were
previously contained in special conditions. Revising Sec. 23.773
establishes a requirement that could later be used as a means of
compliance if the proposed part 23 rule becomes final.
This final rule also makes related and conforming amendments to
Sec. Sec. 91.175, 91.905 and 135.225. The FAA is updating regulatory
cross references and terms in Sec. 91.175 to coincide with this final
rule and with another FAA final rule, which was published after the
NPRM.\2\ The FAA is amending Sec. 91.905 to include Sec. 91.176 as a
regulation subject to waiver. Additionally, the FAA is revising Sec.
135.225 to correct a drafting error that arose from another final rule,
``Enhanced Flight Vision Systems,'' 69 FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004), and
later identified in an FAA legal interpretation dated September 20,
2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).
\3\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip Kelsey from Mark
W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (September
20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

The FAA created regulations in 2004, Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), which
permitted persons to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend
an aircraft below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE. These
regulations, however, did not provide operators with the ability to
fully utilize the benefits of EFVS technology. The FAA believes it can
better leverage EFVS capabilities by issuing performance-based
requirements for current and future enhanced flight vision systems,
which should increase access, efficiency, and throughput at many
airports when low visibility is a factor.
Under the 2004 EFVS regulations, the pilot of an aircraft operating
under part 121, 125, or 135 could not begin an approach or continue an
approach past the final approach fix (FAF), or, where a FAF was not
used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure, when the weather at the destination airport was reported to
be below authorized minimums. These restrictions prevented persons
conducting operations under parts 121, 125, or 135 from using EFVS for
maximum operational benefit.
Under Sec. 91.175(l), persons could use the enhanced flight
visibility provided by an EFVS for operational benefit only in that
portion of the visual segment of an approach that extended from DA/DH
or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE. While that provided significant
benefits, the requirement to transition to natural vision at 100 feet
above the TDZE prevented operators from realizing the benefits of
permitting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout.
Furthermore, the 2004 EFVS regulations did not specify any
training, recent flight experience, or proficiency requirements in part
61 for persons conducting EFVS operations. Since the 2004 final rule
was enacted, the number of EFVS operations has significantly increased.
The FAA believes this final rule will further increase the number of
operators conducting EFVS operations to lower altitudes in low
visibility conditions. Therefore, training, recent flight experience,
and refresher training requirements in part 61 are needed to ensure an
appropriate level of safety is maintained.
Additionally, the 2004 EFVS regulations did not permit persons to
use EFVS for operational benefit during Category II and Category III
operations. The FAA believes an EFVS can provide operational and safety
benefits during Category II and Category III operations,

[[Page 90129]]

especially as more advanced imaging sensor capabilities are developed,
which function more effectively in lower visibility conditions.
Finally, prior to this final rule, there were no airworthiness
standards that specifically addressed vision systems, such as EFVS.
Accordingly, the FAA used special conditions to certificate aircraft
with vision systems, which imposed significant delays on the
certification process.

B. Related Actions

The FAA revised Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106, Enhanced Flight
Vision Systems, and AC 20-167, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced
Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and
Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment to incorporate the provisions
of this final rule. AC 90-106A contains guidance for the operational
approval of EFVS, and AC 20-167A specifies a means of compliance that
may be used to obtain airworthiness approval for EFVS.

C. Summary of the NPRM

On June 11, 2013, the FAA published an NPRM titled ``Revisions to
Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems
(EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems,''
78 FR 34935. The comment period was initially scheduled to close on
September 9, 2013. Dassault Aviation submitted a request to extend the
NPRM comment period to October 15, 2013, stating that it needed
additional time to evaluate and prepare comments for the NPRM, draft AC
90-106A, and draft AC 20-167A, all of which are directly related. On
September 6, 2013, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register
extending the NPRM comment period to October 15, 2013, to coincide with
the close of comment period for draft AC 90-106A and draft AC 20-167A.
``Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight
Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for
Vision Systems; Extension of Comment Period,'' 78 FR 54790.
The regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted
to the docket prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, to
ensure that the public had the opportunity to provide comments
specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in the docket, the FAA
published a notice in the Federal Register on August 20, 2015,
reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow for comments on the
regulatory evaluation only. ``Revisions to Operational Requirements for
the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot
Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Reopening of Comment
Period,'' 80 FR 50587.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to--
More fully define the components of an EFVS and provide a
definition of the term ``EFVS operation'' in Sec. 1.1.
Establish airworthiness standards for vision systems with
a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view in Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773.
Require training and an endorsement for EFVS operations in
Sec. 61.31(l).
Require recent flight experience or a proficiency check
for a person conducting an EFVS operation or acting as pilot in command
(PIC) during an EFVS operation in Sec. 61.57(i).
Re-designate Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) as Sec. 91.176(b).
The FAA proposed to place all EFVS regulations contained in part 91,
except those pertaining to Category II and Category III operations, in
a single new section for organizational and regulatory clarity.
Permit EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to
continue descending below 100 feet above the touchdown zone provided
certain equipment, operating, visibility, and visual reference
requirements were met.
Permit an EFVS to be used to identify the visual
references required to continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH
on Category II and Category III approaches conducted under Sec. 91.189
that provide and require the use of a DA/DH.
Add Sec. 91.176 to the list of rules subject to waiver in
Sec. 91.905.
Amend Sec. Sec. 121.613 and 121.615 to permit an EFVS-
equipped aircraft to be dispatched or released when the visibility was
forecast or reported to be below authorized minimums for a destination
airport.
Permit a pilot conducting an EFVS operation in accordance
with Sec. 121.651 to continue an approach past the FAF, or begin the
final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure, when the
weather was reported to be below authorized visibility minimums.
Proposed Sec. 121.651 also would have permitted EFVS-equipped part 121
operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with Sec. 91.176
and their operations specifications issued for EFVS operations.
Permit flight release under Sec. Sec. 125.361 and 125.363
for EFVS-equipped aircraft when weather reports or forecasts indicated
that arrival weather conditions at the destination airport would be
below authorized minimums.
Permit the pilot of an EFVS-equipped aircraft to execute
an instrument approach procedure when the weather is reported below
authorized visibility minimums under Sec. Sec. 125.325 and 125.381.
Proposed Sec. 125.381 also would have permitted EFVS-equipped part 125
operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with Sec. 91.176
and their operations specifications.
Permit flights in EFVS-equipped aircraft to be initiated
under Sec. 135.219 when weather reports or forecasts indicated that
arrival weather conditions at the destination airport would be below
authorized minimums.
Permit the pilot of an EFVS-equipped aircraft to initiate
an instrument approach procedure under Sec. 135.225 when the reported
visibility was below the authorized visibility minimums for the
approach. Proposed Sec. 135.225 also would have permitted EFVS-
equipped part 135 operators to conduct EFVS operations in accordance
with Sec. 91.176 and their operations specifications issued for EFVS
operations.
Make additional related and conforming amendments.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed performance-based requirements not
limited to a specific sensor technology. The FAA intended to
accommodate future developments in real-time sensor technologies and
maximize the benefits of advanced flight deck systems. The final rule
is consistent with the agency's Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen) goals of increasing access and throughput during low
visibility operations.
The operating requirements of the proposal only addressed enhanced
flight vision systems that utilize a real-time image of the external
scene topography. The proposed operating requirements did not address
synthetic vision, which uses a computer-generated image of the external
scene topography from the perspective of the flight deck, derived from
aircraft attitude, a high precision navigation solution, and a database
of terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural features. The airworthiness
standards proposed in Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773,
however, addressed synthetic vision systems (SVS) with a transparent
display surface located in the pilot's outside field of view because
the airworthiness standards apply to more than enhanced flight vision
systems; they apply to all transparent display surfaces located in the
pilot's outside field of view.

[[Page 90130]]

Finally, the NPRM did not address the use of EFVS for takeoff
because the FAA can authorize these operations through existing
processes. Section 91.175(f) already provides a means for persons
conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 to obtain
authorization for lower than standard takeoff minimums, which could
include the use of EFVS. Additionally, the regulations do not prescribe
civil airport takeoff minimums for part 91 operators (other than part
91subpart K operators) as discussed in section III.C.2.h of this
preamble.

D. General Overview of Comments

The FAA received comments from 34 commenters. The commenters
consisted of 16 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), five industry
associations, several operators, an aircraft management service, an
aerospace consulting company, a standards organization, and several
individuals. All but one commenter generally supported the proposed
changes. Three commenters supported the proposal with no changes, and
the remaining 30 commenters generally supported the proposal with 171
comments containing questions, concerns, and suggested changes.
A number of commenters stated that they support the FAA's intent to
better leverage EFVS capabilities by providing a performance-based
regulation for existing and evolving EFVS technology. One commenter
stated that future improvements in EFVS sensor technologies may enable
additional performance-based operations under the FAA's proposal, and
others commented that they believe EFVS technology has tremendous
potential for increasing safety and enhancing airspace utilization
within the NAS while creating economic benefits to the public. Several
industry associations said they strongly support the FAA creating and
supporting a flexible regulatory structure that encourages innovation
and improves operational efficiencies. Several OEMs specifically
supported the FAA's proposal to eliminate the need to issue special
conditions by revising the pilot compartment view certification
requirements in the airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, and
29.
Specific changes recommended by the commenters as well as the
concerns expressed by one individual who opposed the FAA's proposal are
discussed in detail in ``Section III. Discussion of Final Rule and
Public Comments.''

III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public Comments

A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and Add a Definition for EFVS
Operation (Sec. 1.1)

Section 1.1 defines enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) to mean
``an installed aircraft system which uses an electronic means to
provide a display of the forward external scene topography (the natural
or manmade features of a place or region especially in a way to show
their relative positions and elevation) through the use of imaging
sensors, such as forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry,
millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. An
EFVS includes the display element, sensors, computers and power
supplies, indications, and controls.'' This definition differs from
what was proposed in the NPRM, because the FAA is not including the
equipment requirements in the definition, which proposed ``The EFVS
sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information and flight
symbology are displayed on a head up display, or an equivalent display,
so that they are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her
normal position with the line of vision looking forward along the
flight path.'' The proposed definition would have inappropriately
embedded requirements.
The definition of EFVS also differs from what was proposed in the
NPRM because the FAA is not using the word ``applicable'' to describe
the natural or manmade features that an EFVS may display. Upon further
reflection, the FAA has decided that the word ``applicable'' could
generate confusion because an EFVS cannot differentiate between
applicable and non-applicable items. An EFVS simply senses and displays
items. The FAA is, however, adopting the proposed relocation to Sec.
1.1 of the descriptive material from Sec. 91.175(m)(3).
Garmin International suggested that the FAA revise the definition
of EFVS by replacing ``EFVS sensor imagery'' with ``EFVS image'' or
``EFVS sensor imagery and aircraft flight symbology.'' In other words,
Garmin was concerned that the term ``sensor imagery,'' as used in the
definition, might be misinterpreted to mean only the image from the
imaging sensor without encompassing the remaining EFVS elements. Garmin
also believed its suggested revision would make the proposed definition
in Sec. 1.1 more consistent with proposed Sec. Sec.
91.176(a)(1)(i)(B), 91.176(a)(1)(i)(E), and 91.176(a)(1)(ii).
The FAA is not adopting the proposed equipment requirements in the
definition of EFVS, because Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) already contains
these requirements.\4\ This decision is not intended to be a
substantive change as the FAA is relying on the equipment requirements
in Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) to replace the requirements it had proposed
in the definition of EFVS. Definitions only describe what something is,
not what it must do. Accordingly, definitions should not contain
substantive regulatory provisions, such as regulatory requirements. If
the FAA were to adopt requirements in the definition of EFVS, the FAA
would not be able to grant an exemption from those requirements in the
future because the FAA's regulations describe an exemption as a request
for relief from the requirements of a regulation.\5\ Nor would the FAA
be able to grant a waiver from those requirements, if they were in the
definition, because Sec. 91.903 permits the FAA to grant a waiver from
any rule listed in Sec. 91.905 and a definition is not a rule.
Therefore, Sec. 1.1 defines the EFVS to which Sec. 91.176 applies and
Sec. 91.176 contains the regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires an EFVS to present EFVS
sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology on
a head up display, or an equivalent display, so that they are
clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal position
with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path.
\5\ 14 CFR 11.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This change obviates addressing Garmin's concern because the
definition no longer contains the terminology Garmin sought to revise.
However, as a result of Garmin's comment, the FAA discovered that Sec.
91.176(a) and (b), as proposed, did not contain specific references to
``aircraft flight information,'' as had been proposed in the definition
of EFVS in Sec. 1.1. Accordingly, the FAA is revising paragraphs (a)
and (b) of Sec. 91.176 to include ``aircraft flight information''
where appropriate.
Section 1.1 defines an ``EFVS operation'' as an operation in which
visibility conditions require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural
vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight
visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct the
rollout. This definition differs slightly from the NPRM, where the FAA
proposed to define ``EFVS operation'' as an operation in which an EFVS
is required to be used to perform such tasks. This change clarifies
that not all operations in which a pilot uses an EFVS constitute an
EFVS operation under the definition. Rather, an EFVS

[[Page 90131]]

operation is an operation that a pilot would not be permitted to
perform without the use of an EFVS. For example, a person may not
descend below the DA/DH using natural vision if the flight visibility
using natural vision is less than what is required by the instrument
approach procedure being flown. That person may, however, use an EFVS
in lieu of natural vision to descend below the DA/DH if the enhanced
flight visibility is not less than what is required by the instrument
approach procedure.
Boeing commented that the FAA stated in the preamble that while an
EFVS can provide situation awareness in any phase of flight, such use
would not constitute an EFVS operation unless an EFVS was required in
lieu of natural vision to perform any visual task associated with
approach, landing, and rollout. Boeing recommended that the FAA
consider not just approach, landing, and rollout as part of an EFVS
operation but approach, landing, and/or rollout to clarify that EFVS
might be used for one segment of the terminal operation, but not other
segments.
The FAA agrees but Boeing's concern is addressed in the definition
of ``EFVS operation'' in Sec. 1.1.

B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in Part 91 in a New Section (Sec.
91.176)

The FAA created a new section, Sec. 91.176, for the EFVS
regulations to ensure organizational and regulatory clarity. As the FAA
originally proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 91.176(a) contains the
requirements for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, and Sec.
91.176(b) contains the requirements, which were previously located in
Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the
TDZE. Boeing recommended that the FAA move the regulations for EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE from Sec. 91.176(b) to Sec.
91.176(a), and move the regulations for EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout from Sec. 91.176(a) to Sec. 91.176(b). Boeing believed
this format would facilitate reading and understanding the changes,
because the existing EFVS rules, which were previously located in Sec.
91.175(l) and (m), would be placed first.
The FAA disagrees with Boeing and is retaining the format as
originally proposed. The FAA placed the new rules for EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout in Sec. 91.176(a) because it believes that
operators will eventually conduct the majority of EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout. Placing these regulations in Sec. 91.176(a)
facilitates quick reference. The FAA placed the rules for EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, which were previously located in
Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), in Sec. 91.176(b) because it expects
operators will use these rules less frequently in the future.
Furthermore, the regulations for EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout are more extensive than the regulations for EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE. By placing the more extensive rules in Sec.
91.176(a), the FAA is able to cross reference the equipment
requirements of Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A)-(a)(1)(i)(F) in Sec.
91.176(b)(1)(ii), thereby eliminating significant redundancy.

C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility and Visual Reference
Requirements for EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout (Sec.
91.176(a))

1. Equipment Requirements
a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors
Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A) requires, as originally proposed in the
NPRM, that an EFVS have an electronic means to provide a display of the
forward external scene topography, which consists of the applicable
natural or manmade features of a place or region, especially in a way
to show their relative positions and elevation, through the use of
imaging sensors, such as forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave
radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image
intensification. Airbus and Thales commented on the list of imaging
sensors. Airbus suggested that the FAA use an ellipsis at the end of
the list to emphasize that it is not exhaustive, and Thales proposed
that the FAA add laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) to the
list.
The FAA finds that the use of the term ``such as'' after the
reference to imaging sensors indicates the list of examples is non-
exhaustive. However, based on the concerns raised by the commenters,
the FAA has revised the definition to clarify that imaging sensors
includes but is not limited to the list of examples in Sec. Sec. 1.1
and 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A).
b. Head Up Presentation Requirement for EFVS Operations
As originally proposed, Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires that an
EFVS present the sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and
flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so
that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the
pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision
looking forward along the flight path.\6\ This requirement applies to
both EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Section 91.175(m) previously contained this requirement.
\7\ Section 91.176(b)(1)(ii) requires the EFVS to meet the
requirements of Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i) with the exception of the
flare prompt, flare guidance, and height above ground level
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters expressed concerns about the requirement to
present sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight
symbology on a head up display (HUD). Honeywell commented that the FAA
is unnecessarily restricting the goals of increased access, efficiency,
and throughput in low visibility conditions by this requirement.
Honeywell agreed that there is value in requiring EFVS information to
be displayed on a HUD for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout but
believes EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE should allow for
head down presentations.\8\ FedEx Express, Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation (Gulfstream), Honeywell, and General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA) commented that the FAA should not limit an
equivalent display to a head up presentation. Instead, it should
consider all vision systems containing the required sensor imagery and
flight symbology that meet an acceptable level of performance and
safety for the intended operation. One commenter suggested that an
acceptable location for an EFVS display, or an equivalent display, was
in the normal line-of-sight established at 15 degrees below the
horizontal plane, +/-15 degrees for the vertical field-of-view, or +40
degrees up and -20 degrees down as a maximum deviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Honeywell asserted that Sec. 91.176(a) and (b) describe two
different operations that do not necessarily require the same
equipment. Honeywell explained that operators may currently perform
Category II ILS approaches down to 100 feet above the TDZE using
head down primary displays. Honeywell's comments are out of scope as
the FAA did not propose to change the existing head-up display, or
equivalent display, requirements. Furthermore, the FAA notes that
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and Category II ILS
approaches down to 100 feet above the TDZE are two distinct
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters were also concerned that the head up presentation
requirement might have limiting effects on future technology. Honeywell
contended that the FAA's HUD requirement for EFVS does not allow for
new technologies and new ways of presenting information that could be
developed in the future. It also believed that alternative means for
displaying the sensor imagery and flight information have already been
shown to satisfy the necessary performance criteria. Additionally,
several commenters stated that the FAA is unnecessarily limiting future
aircraft or

[[Page 90132]]

systems that may be capable of meeting performance-based criteria
appropriate for EFVS operations, such as vision systems that use head
down displays, high-speed aircraft that have reduced or limited front
window designs, or unmanned aerial systems (UASs). GAMA recommended
that the FAA create a performance-based framework rather than making
EFVS dependent only on HUD technology. It believes this would not only
permit different technology solutions but would allow manufacturers to
design an EFVS that enables operations to different performance minima.
The FAA is not adopting these recommendations because they are
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to change
the existing head-up display, or equivalent display, requirements under
Sec. 91.175(m).\9\ Rather, the FAA proposed to expand EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout using the existing operational construct in
Sec. 91.175(l) and (m). More specifically, the FAA proposed to apply
all the equipment requirements of the EFVS regulations found in Sec.
91.175(m), including the head-up presentation requirement, to EFVS
operations conducted to touchdown and rollout. As a result, others have
not had an opportunity to comment on the use of HDDs to conduct EFVS
operations. While the FAA is not issuing an SNPRM at this time to
propose the use of HDDs under Sec. 91.176, the FAA notes that it may
grant waivers to OEMs from the applicable sections of Sec. 91.176 to
enable OEMs to use HDDs during EFVS operations for the purpose of
research and development. After the FAA has had sufficient time to
gather information and analyze the safety of HDDs used to conduct EFVS
operations in the national airspace system, the FAA may contemplate
future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The FAA notes that commenters raised these issues in 2004.
The FAA disagreed that it should permit the presentation of EFVS
information on head down displays, and noted that EFVS information
must be presented on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so
that the imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight symbology
are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal
position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight
path. Please see the previous disposition of comments in ``Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems,'' 69 FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. EFVS Terminology
A couple of commenters sought clarification and alignment of the
EFVS terminology used in Sec. 91.176.
Under Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i), a U.S.-registered aircraft must have
an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness
requirements.\10\ The terminology in this requirement differs slightly
from the NPRM, which would have required an operable EFVS that had an
FAA type design approval certified for EFVS operations. Dassault
Aviation requested that the FAA clarify the terms ``approved EFVS,''
``certified EFVS,'' and ``EFVS-equipped operator.'' The FAA finds it
unnecessary to clarify the terms ``approved EFVS'' and ``EFVS-equipped
operator'' because it did not specifically use these terms in the
proposed regulations. Nor is the FAA using these terms in this final
rule. The FAA also finds it unnecessary to clarify the term ``certified
EFVS'' because it has deleted the word ``certified'' from proposed
Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(i). Instead, the FAA is
using the phrase ``meets the applicable airworthiness requirements.''
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See AC No. 20-167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced
Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and
Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment (providing guidance for
obtaining airworthiness approval for enhanced and synthetic vision
systems in aircraft).
\11\ The disposition of Thales' comment in the next section of
the preamble explains why the FAA is using the phrase ``meets the
applicable airworthiness requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for Foreign-Registered Aircraft
Under Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), an aircraft must be
equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness
requirements. The requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i)
differ from the NPRM based on a comment from Thales and the ICAO
standards that were adopted after the NPRM was published. Additionally,
the NPRM proposed Sec. 91.176(b)(1)(i) as Sec. 91.176(b)(1)(iii).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The FAA restructured the requirements in proposed Sec.
91.176(b)(1)(i)-(iii) to be more consistent with Sec.
91.176(a)(1)(i) for organizational clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thales commented that an EFVS-equipped foreign-registered aircraft
that does not have an FAA type design approval, but has been certified
by its own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to operate with an EFVS,
should not have to demonstrate compliance to the FAA regulations.
Thales stated that this requirement is not always feasible as a foreign
CAA may not be able to correctly interpret the FAA regulations. In
addition, it stated that this requirement is not consistent with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards without
citing the specific standards at issue.\13\ Thales asserted that a
foreign operator operating in the United States should only have to
demonstrate that it has been authorized to operate the EFVS in
accordance with the rules of its own CAA and that the FAA should
recognize them as being compliant with FAA rules without requesting a
specific compliance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The FAA believes that Thales is referring to ICAO Annex 6,
Part I, 6.23.2 and ICAO Annex 6, Part II, 2.4.15.2, which are
discussed in the following paragraph. The FAA notes that ICAO
adopted these standards after the NPRM was published on June 11,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA agrees that it should not require an EFVS-equipped foreign-
registered aircraft to have an EFVS that meets the FAA's certification
requirements if that EFVS has been certified by the foreign-registered
aircraft's own CAA in accordance with ICAO Annex 6. ICAO Annex 6
defines an enhanced vision system (EVS) as a ``system to display
electronic real-time images of the external scene achieved through the
use of image sensors.'' ICAO's definition of EVS encompasses the FAA's
definition of EFVS. Accordingly, the ICAO Annex 6 standards on EVS
apply to EFVS.
Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 requires the State of the
Operator, in approving the operational use of EVS, to ensure that the
equipment meets the appropriate airworthiness certification
requirements. Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2 requires the State of
Registry, in approving the operational use of EVS, to ensure that the
equipment meets the appropriate airworthiness certification
requirements.\14\ Based on the FAA's interpretation of these standards,
if an EFVS-equipped foreign-registered aircraft has an EFVS that has
been approved by the State of the Operator or the State of Registry to
meet the CAA's airworthiness certification requirements, the FAA cannot
subsequently require that foreign-registered aircraft's EFVS to meet
U.S. certification requirements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ ICAO adopted Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 and Annex 6,
Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2 after the FAA issued the NPRM on June 11,
2013,
\15\ The FAA could have required this prior to the adoption of
Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 and Annex 6, Part II, Standard
2.4.15.2, which explains why Sec. 91.175(l)(7) previously required
a foreign-registered aircraft to have an EFVS that complies with all
of the EFVS requirements of 14 CFR and why the FAA proposed to
retain the requirement in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i) now require an
aircraft to be equipped with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable
airworthiness requirements. By using the phrase ``meets the applicable
airworthiness requirements,'' the requirement applies to both U.S.-
registered aircraft and foreign-registered aircraft. The U.S.-
registered aircraft must be equipped with an EFVS that has demonstrated

[[Page 90133]]

compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements by issuance
of a design approval through the type certification process (i.e., type
certificate, amended type certificate, or supplemental type
certificate).\16\ The foreign-registered aircraft must be equipped with
an EFVS that has been approved by either the State of the Operator or
the State of Registry to meet the appropriate airworthiness
certification requirements in accordance with ICAO Annex 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Section 91.175(l)(7) previously required an EFVS to have an
FAA type design approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While a foreign-registered aircraft with an EFVS certified to a
foreign airworthiness standard may operate within the United States
without obtaining an FAA type design approval and without meeting the
FAA's certification requirements, that EFVS-equipped foreign-registered
aircraft must meet all of the requirements in Sec. 91.176, including
the equipment requirements, in order to be used in EFVS operations in
the United States. This requirement is consistent with ICAO standards.
Article 11 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation requires
aircraft subject to its provisions and operating within the territory
of a contracting State to comply with the applicable laws and
regulations enacted by that State. ICAO Annex 6, Part I, Chapter 3
states that an operator shall meet and maintain the requirements of the
States in which the operations are conducted and that an operator shall
ensure that all pilots are familiar with the laws, regulations and
procedures pertinent to the performance of their duties prescribed for
the areas to be traversed.\17\ Similarly, ICAO Annex 6, Part II,
Chapter 2.1 requires the PIC to comply with the laws, regulations, and
procedures of those States in which operations are conducted and to be
familiar with the laws, regulations, and procedures pertinent to the
performance of his or her duties prescribed for the areas to be
traversed.\18\ ICAO Annex 2, Standard 2.1.1 states that the rules of
the air apply to aircraft of a contracting State to the extent they do
not conflict with the rules published by the State having jurisdiction
over the territory flown. The FAA also notes that certain foreign
authorities have imposed requirements on operators of U.S.-registered
aircraft in their airspace that are in addition to those established by
the FAA to permit the conduct of EFVS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ ICAO Annex 6, Part I, Standards 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
\18\ ICAO Annex 6, Part II, Standards 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display
Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) states, as originally proposed, that an
EFVS must present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and
flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so
that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the
pilot flying in his or her normal position with the pilot's line of
vision looking forward along the flight path.
Boeing commented that a sensor will likely be hard-mounted to the
airframe such that it is pointing straight along the longitudinal axis.
It also noted that a HUD is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft, and when someone flies a ``crabbed'' approach the flight path
does not coincide with the longitudinal axis. Therefore, Boeing
recommended that the FAA revise the rule from ``looking forward along
the flight path'' to ``looking forward along the aircraft longitudinal
axis with adequate downward field of view to accommodate sight along
the normal flight path vector.'' Boeing noted that it is currently
allowed to ``ghost'' symbology on the HUD that appears outside the HUD
field of view, and that this capability should be preserved.
The FAA is not adopting Boeing's recommendation because it could
unnecessarily restrict new technology that becomes available in the
future. The EFVS requirements are performance-based, with means of
compliance contained and updated as necessary in advisory circular
documents. While the FAA recognizes that the aircraft's flight path may
not necessarily coincide with the aircraft's longitudinal axis, the
phrase ``clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal
position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight
path'' is intended to ensure that the EFVS provides a head up
presentation and will accommodate Boeing's recommendation.
As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(C) requires an EFVS
to present the displayed EFVS sensor imagery, attitude symbology,
flight path vector (FPV), and flight path angle reference cue (FPARC),
and other cues, which are referenced to the EFVS sensor imagery and
external scene topography, so that they are aligned with, and scaled
to, the external view. The term ``referenced to'' is used to reflect
the FAA's expectation that the vision system imagery and certain
symbology use the same coordinate reference system as the pilot's
perspective outside view of the world. This is because the pilot uses
the vision system imagery and symbology in coordination with, and
sometimes in very low visibility as a substitute for, the outside view
of the world, including the terrain, features of the runway
environment, and topology in general.
Rockwell Collins asked whether it could conduct EFVS operations
under the rule if the ``Flight Path Symbol'' became limited, and
therefore nonconformal, to the EFVS image due to severe crosswinds or
blowing snow conditions.
The ability to perform an EFVS operation with a nonconformal FPV
depends on a variety of factors, such as the particular EFVS and the
type and severity of the limiting conditions. Because the EFVS is the
primary means by which the pilot will maneuver the airplane to land,
conditions that cause the FPV to become field-of-view limited, and
therefore nonconformal, could make the display unacceptable for
landing. An applicant should demonstrate EFVS operations on a variety
of instrument approach procedures and in various wind conditions with
pilot-in-the-loop simulation and a flight test, if possible, to
establish the operational effects that limiting conditions might have
on landing with an EFVS. The FAA may impose limitations in the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) or Airplane Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) for
conditions where the required level of performance is not
satisfactorily demonstrated.
f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue (FPARC)
Pursuant to Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D), the EFVS must display the
FPARC with a pitch scale, and the FPARC must be selectable by the pilot
to the desired descent angle for the approach and be suitable for
monitoring the vertical flight path of the aircraft. The FAA made
changes to this paragraph from what it originally proposed based on
concerns raised by Boeing.
Boeing asserted that the proposed requirement implied that the
pitch scale was selectable, not the FPARC. Boeing commented that the
FAA should revise Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D) to clarify that the FPARC
must be selectable by the pilot to the desired descent angle for the
approach being flown. Boeing also recommended that the provision
indicate that the appropriate descent angle associated with the
approach be selectable either by the pilot or automatically by the
flight management computer.
The FAA agrees and is revising Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D)
accordingly. However, the FAA does not consider it necessary to specify
whether the

[[Page 90134]]

descent angle selected is accomplished manually or automatically. The
rule does not prohibit the automatic setting of the flight path angle;
however, the pilot must have the ability to either manually select the
flight path angle or to manually override the automatic setting.
g. Requirement To Display Height Above Ground Level
Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) specifies an equipment requirement for
EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, which requires an EFVS to
display height above ground level, such as that provided by a radio
altimeter or other device capable of providing equivalent performance.
Dassault Aviation asked whether the FAA could provide an example of
such a device.
The FAA is not providing an example of an equivalent device,
because it intends this rule to be a performance based requirement that
is not limited to one device and that could accommodate future advances
in technology. The FAA notes, however, that such a device must be
capable of equivalently performing the function of a radio altimeter,
which is to provide an accurate and reliable indication of aircraft
height above the ground.
h. Requirement To Display Flare Prompt or Flare Guidance
For EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in aircraft other than
rotorcraft, Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires the EFVS to display flare
prompt or flare guidance. This requirement reflects a slight change
from what was proposed in the NPRM, where the FAA would have required
the display of flare prompt or flare guidance for all aircraft, for
achieving acceptable touchdown performance.
Helicopter Association International (HAI) commented that
rotorcraft certificated under parts 27 and 29 should be excluded from
the requirement to display flare prompt or flare guidance, because
parts 27 and 29 do not require flare prompt or flare guidance based on
lower operating speed and maneuverability. The FAA agrees for the
reasons the commenter provided. Accordingly, Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B)
now excepts rotorcraft from the requirement.
Boeing and Airbus also raised concerns about the definition of
acceptable touchdown performance. Boeing stated that the FAA should
define acceptable touchdown performance in guidance material, because
it was unsure whether the term meant landing in the touchdown zone,
compliance with landing performance specified in AC 120-28D,
equivalency to the AIII mode of a head up guidance system, or
compliance with some other performance standard. Boeing also suggested
that the FAA address quantitative standards in guidance material to
ensure an applicant or designer can demonstrate compliance with the
regulatory requirement. Airbus provided a similar comment, suggesting
that the FAA provide pass/fail criteria for acceptable touchdown
performance during an EFVS operation using flare prompt or flare
guidance.
The FAA is not adopting a requirement ``as appropriate, for
acceptable touchdown performance'' under Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B)
because the term ``acceptable touchdown performance'' is both vague, as
identified by the commenters, and extraneous. ``Acceptable touchdown
performance'' is not a regulatory term to date. Nor is it defined in
the regulations. Furthermore, Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(F) already requires
an EFVS to display characteristics, dynamics, and cues that are
suitable for manual control of the aircraft to touchdown in the
touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. Because paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(F) requires the flare cue, i.e. flare prompt or flare
guidance, to be suitable for manual control of the aircraft to
touchdown in the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing, it
is therefore unnecessary to require an EFVS to display flare prompt or
flare guidance for achieving ``acceptable touchdown performance'' in
paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B). Each applicant for a type design approval must
demonstrate touchdown performance for their particular EFVS
implementation using either flare prompt or flare guidance. AC 20-167,
paragraph 6-2(f)(4) specifically discusses landing performance
demonstrations for EFVS operations conducted to touchdown and rollout
and provides a means of demonstrating compliance for applicants or
designers.
Boeing further commented that the FAA should provide touchdown
requirements that are strictly performance-based and asserted that the
FAA should not require flare guidance or flare cue for a particular
EFVS implementation if the pilot can achieve acceptable sink rate and
position without them. The FAA disagrees. The FAA finds it necessary to
provide the pilot with additional information to conduct a flare
maneuver during conditions of low visibility typically encountered
during EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA based the
requirement in Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) on RTCA DO-315A and
incorporated it in the interest of safety to ensure continued safe
approaches and landings in low visibility conditions.\19\ The FAA notes
that by requiring flare prompt or flare guidance for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout, it provides manufacturers flexibility to use
either means to achieve acceptable touchdown performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association. It was
founded in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics to
advance the art and science of aviation and aviation electronic
systems for the benefit of the public. The organization functions as
a Federal Advisory Committee and develops consensus-based
recommendations on contemporary aviation issues. The organization's
recommendations are often used as the basis for government and
private sector decisions as well as the foundation for many FAA
documents. For more information, see https://www.rtca.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airbus and Thales raised concerns about the requirement to display
flare prompt or flare guidance when using autoland during EFVS
operations. Airbus commented that EFVS operations using autoland should
be possible, but the requirement to display flare prompt or flare
guidance is not relevant when using it. Thales stated that the FAA
should mandate flare prompt or flare guidance for manual operations
using the EFVS to achieve acceptable touchdown performance, but it
should not require an EFVS to display flare prompt or flare guidance
during an approach using EFVS that is performed with a certified
autoland function.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters. All autoland systems to date
have been approved based on performance demonstrations at runways with
Category III approach infrastructure. If conducting an autoland
approach with any other kind of runway infrastructure (i.e., less than
Category III), the visual conditions must be sufficient for the pilot
to monitor the operation and, if necessary, take immediate manual
control. EFVS provides enhanced flight visibility to compensate for
what the pilot cannot see unaided. In the case of an EFVS landing, the
EFVS must be equipped with an approved flare prompt or flare guidance
as part of the required visual information to be eligible for EFVS
operational approval to land. For this reason, even if the crew is
approved to use autoland during an EFVS operation, the EFVS must be
equipped with and must display all of the required features.
i. Pilot Monitoring Display
When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, Sec.
91.176(a)(1)(ii) requires the aircraft to be equipped with a display
that provides the pilot monitoring \20\ with

[[Page 90135]]

EFVS sensor imagery Also, as proposed, the pilot monitoring display may
provide symbology but any symbology displayed may not adversely obscure
the sensor imagery of the runway environment. However, the FAA is not
adopting the requirement for the pilot monitoring display to be located
within the maximum primary field of view \21\ of the pilot monitoring.
This departure from what the FAA originally proposed arose as a result
of the FAA's own continued review of the proposal. The FAA is also not
adopting the requirement for the EFVS sensor imagery and aircraft
flight symbology to be displayed to the pilot monitoring on a HUD or an
equivalent display for certain future EFVS operations at the
Administrator's discretion. This departure from what the FAA originally
proposed arose out of comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The term ``pilot monitoring'' refers to the individual who
is sitting at the pilot controls and monitoring the operation of the
aircraft. Historically, the FAA has referred to this individual as
the pilot not flying. In 2003, the FAA amended AC 120-71A, Standard
Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers, and replaced the
term ``pilot not flying'' with ``pilot monitoring'' to convey that
the pilot not flying should be actively engaged in the safe
operation of the aircraft and, as such, should be trained and
evaluated in performing active pilot monitoring skills. See
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800, 67812 (Nov. 12, 2013) (discussing pilot
monitoring duties and training).
\21\ Maximum primary field of view is based on the maximum
vertical and horizontal visual fields from the design eye reference
point. The values for the maximum vertical visual field (relative to
normal line-of-sight forward of the airplane) are +40 degrees up and
-20 degrees down. The values for the maximum horizontal visual field
are +35 degrees left and +35 degrees right. AC 25-11B and AC 20-
167A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon further reflection, the FAA is not adopting the requirement
for the PM display to be located in the ``maximum primary field of
view'' because the term ``maximum primary field of view'' is not used
or defined in the regulations to-date and the proposed location
requirement is unnecessary. When a PM display is installed on an
aircraft, it must meet the arrangement and visibility requirements in
Sec. Sec. 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321, which will achieve
the same objective as the proposed requirement by requiring the PM
display to be located so that any pilot seated at the controls can
monitor the airplane's flight path and the instruments with minimum
head and eye movement. The FAA will also require aircraft that pre-date
Sec. Sec. 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321 to meet the
arrangement and visibility requirements in those sections for the
installation of PM displays. Because the airworthiness requirements of
Sec. Sec. 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321 will already ensure
the proper placement of a PM display, the FAA finds it unnecessary to
adopt a location requirement in the operating rule.
Several commenters shared concerns about the provision in proposed
Sec. 91.176(a)(1)(ii) that would have allowed the Administrator to
require a head up display, or equivalent display, for the pilot
monitoring based upon the EFVS operation to be conducted. Boeing noted
that designers and operators needed to know the conditions under which
the FAA might require a head up display for the pilot monitoring.
Similarly, Airbus asked the FAA for clarification, and Thales suggested
that the FAA develop criteria to define when a pilot monitoring had to
have a head up display. Additionally, Bombardier Aerospace was
concerned that, while the FAA intended the language to provide for
future technological advancements, the agency could immediately apply
the requirement to current installations where it would be impractical
to implement.
The FAA agrees with the commenters that the proposal was unclear.
The FAA intended to address future EFVS operations and technological
advancements; however, based on the confusion surrounding the
provision, the FAA has decided not to adopt it. Instead, to facilitate
the performance of future EFVS operations, the FAA is adding new Sec.
91.176(a)(4) that states that the Administrator may prescribe
additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference
requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics,
operational procedures, or approach characteristics. These requirements
will be specified in an operator's operations specifications,
management specifications, or letter of authorization authorizing the
use of EFVS. This provision will better facilitate the FAA's ability to
respond to future technological developments without causing confusion
around the pilot monitoring requirement.
Boeing also commented that the pilot monitoring display
requirements should include a horizon line, flight path vector cue, and
FPARC in addition to the EFVS sensor imagery. Boeing contended that
without this aircraft flight symbology, the pilot monitoring would have
no cues with which to judge performance and noted that RTCA DO-315A
specifies the additional cues.
During EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, when a minimum
flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the aircraft must be
equipped with a display that provides the pilot monitoring with EFVS
sensor imagery. The FAA finds it unnecessary to require additional
features on the pilot monitoring display, such as an artificial horizon
line, a flight path vector cue, and a FPARC, because the pilot
monitoring display requirements are intended only to enable that pilot
to see a real time sensor image of the required visual references.
Section 91.176(a)(1)(ii) is a minimum requirement, however.
Accordingly, it does not preclude OEMs and operators from including
additional features, such as those described by the commenters. The FAA
notes that any additional features that are displayed on the pilot
monitoring display may not interfere with the EFVS image of the
required visual references.
Boeing further stated that it was unclear whether the pilot
monitoring display had to be a repeater of the display provided to the
flying pilot, or an independent system. Sierra Nevada Corporation
submitted a similar comment asking the FAA to clarify whether the EFVS
sensor imagery required to be provided to the pilot monitoring had to
be identical to that provided to the pilot flying on the HUD, or
whether the pilot monitoring display could utilize imagery that was
augmented by color, symbolic representation of features and obstacles,
a synthetic database of features and obstacles, an alternate
perspective view such as a top-down view, an alternate EFVS sensor
source, or blending.
The FAA intends the regulatory requirement for the pilot monitoring
display to be performance based. Accordingly, the provision does not
specifically require a repeater display or an independent system. Nor
does it preclude the display of imagery that is augmented by features
such as those described by Sierra Nevada Corporation. Whether the pilot
monitoring display should be a repeater display or an independent
system will depend on the operation to be conducted. AC 20-167A
contains means of compliance for the pilot monitoring display. The FAA
also notes that, as display technology continues to improve, it will
evaluate additional display capabilities and features that become
available provided the display meets applicable airworthiness
requirements.
Rockwell Collins also submitted comments on the pilot monitoring
display. It asserted that the FAA should take into account other
monitoring methods, such as those used by a pilot monitoring the safe
conduct of a Head up Guidance System (HGS)-flown Category III approach,
landing, and rollout. Such monitoring methods would not require a
second HUD, nor would they require the pilot monitoring display to
repeat the HUD symbology.

[[Page 90136]]

For example, a person could use expanded deviation scales based on
global positioning system (GPS) to verify alignment with the runway,
and ADS-B information to monitor other aircraft and vehicles on the
runway. Rockwell Collins also proposed that the requirement identify
the items that the pilot monitoring must monitor and assess, rather
than indicating the actual equipment the pilot monitoring must use to
perform the monitoring tasks, such as a display of EFVS imagery.
The FAA is not adopting Rockwell Collins' recommendations. When a
minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the pilot
monitoring must have a display that provides him or her with EFVS
sensor imagery. This requirement is necessary because, when the pilot
flying relies on EFVS from DA/DH to touchdown and rollout, it cannot be
assumed that the pilot monitoring sees anything of the outside
environment using natural vision. Providing the pilot monitoring with
EFVS sensor imagery supports his or her view of the outside
environment, enables confirmation of the required visual references and
safe conduct of the approach and landing, and provides common
situational awareness between the pilot flying and the pilot
monitoring. The FAA notes, however, that the pilot monitoring display
is not the only source of flight path information available to the
pilot monitoring. The pilot monitoring may use GPS and ADS-B
information, as Rockwell Collins suggested, in addition to the EFVS
sensor imagery. The FAA further notes that the pilot monitoring should
monitor sources of information that he or she would normally monitor
during an approach and landing.
j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to Rotorcraft Operations
The GAMA, HAI, and Eurocopter and American Eurocopter commented
that the scope of the NPRM appeared to apply to both fixed-wing
airplanes and rotorcraft; however, the technical requirements appear to
apply only to fixed wing airplanes. GAMA and Eurocopter and American
Eurocopter recommended that the FAA modify Sec. 91.176(a)(1), as
proposed in the NPRM, to ensure the equipment requirements accommodated
the differences between airplanes and rotorcraft. They also recommended
that the FAA consider permitting the use of EFVS in rotorcraft IFR
operations, such as wide area augmentation system/localizer performance
with vertical guidance (WAAS/LPV) approaches, published instrument
approach procedures to heliports, offshore helicopter operations, and
point in space instrument approaches.
The FAA notes that this rule does not preclude persons from
conducting EFVS operations under IFR in rotorcraft. Section 91.176(a)
limits EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to approaches with a
DA/DH and prohibits the pilot from using circling minimums. Currently,
there are no instrument approach criteria or procedures that have been
developed for straight-in landing operations below DA/DH under IFR to
heliports or platforms. If such approach procedures were developed in
the future for heliports or platforms, along with appropriate visual
reference requirements for rotorcraft operations,\22\ persons could
conduct EFVS operations to a landing in rotorcraft on these approaches.
However, EFVS operations may not be conducted on approaches to a point-
in-space followed by a ``proceed VFR'' visual segment, or on approaches
designed to a specific landing site using a ``proceed visually'' visual
segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The visual reference requirements under Sec. 91.176(a)(3)
and (b)(3) were derived from the visual reference requirements under
Sec. 91.175(c)(3), which were established for runways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAI also commented that the FAA should expand its references to
landing and rollout to address the maneuverability of aircraft
certificated under parts 27 and 29 and that it should specify
``approach to hover'' and ``hover taxiing.'' The FAA disagrees with the
commenter. The FAA finds it unnecessary to expand the terminology in
the EFVS regulations to specifically encompass the maneuverability of
rotorcraft because it did not intend the terms landing and rollout to
restrict persons from conducting EFVS operations in rotorcraft. The FAA
also notes that this rule does not address taxi operations.
Accordingly, this rule does not apply to hover taxiing.
k. Requirement To Obtain a Certificate of Waiver When Conducting
Certain EFVS Operations
Section 91.176(d) states that the requirement to have an EFVS that
meets the applicable airworthiness requirements specified in Sec.
91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2)(iii) does not apply
to operations conducted in an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations provided the
Administrator has determined that the operations can be conducted
safely in accordance with operating limitations issued for that
purpose. This paragraph was added as a result of comments.
The 2004 EFVS regulations, specifically Sec. 91.175(l)(2),
required a person to have a certified EFVS in order to use the EFVS in
lieu of natural vision to descend below the authorized DA/DH or MDA.
Proposed Sec. 91.176 would have required the same. The FAA recognizes,
however, that an EFVS used to obtain an FAA type design approval may
not yet be certified. To date, a person obtaining an FAA type design
approval with an EFVS that has not yet been certified has been required
to obtain a certificate of waiver \23\ in order to use the EFVS in lieu
of natural vision to descend below the DA/DH or MDA during flights
prior to type design approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Section 91.175(l) was a rule subject to waiver under Sec.
91.905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Elbit Systems of America, Sierra Nevada
Corporation, and GAMA commented that the FAA should eliminate the
requirement to obtain a certificate of waiver from the EFVS rules in
order to demonstrate compliance during EFVS certification flights.
Several of these commenters further stated that the FAA should remove
the term ``certified'' because the operating rules assume the equipment
is certified. Additionally, many commenters felt that the FAA should
not require waivers for certification flight tests that are conducted
with aircraft in the experimental category.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns and is revising the
EFVS regulations by adding Sec. 91.176(d), which enables persons to
conduct EFVS certification flights without obtaining a waiver, provided
the Administrator has determined that the operations can be conducted
safely in accordance with operating limitations issued for that
purpose. The FAA will issue operating limitations when it approves an
applicant's program letter describing the flight operations to be
conducted and issues the experimental certificate for the purpose of
research and development or showing compliance with regulations. The
FAA is also adding the exception and a reference to Sec. 91.176(d) to
the introductions in Sec. 91.176(a) and (b). The FAA finds that
eliminating the waiver requirement, which resulted from the
promulgation of Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) in 2004, will streamline the
process both for the FAA and for applicants seeking to certify an EFVS.
This will be accomplished without a reduction in FAA oversight. The FAA
notes, however, that an operator is not relieved from complying with
the EFVS operating rules when it places an aircraft in the experimental
category; it

[[Page 90137]]

is only relieved from the requirement to have an EFVS with an FAA type
design approval for the purpose of research and development or showing
compliance with the regulations. AC 90-106A and AC 20-167A contain
guidance material pertaining to the Sec. 91.176(d) exception.
2. Operating Requirements
a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS Operations
Under Sec. 91.176(a), a person conducting an EFVS operation in an
aircraft below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout must
conduct the operation on an approach with minimums \24\ that include a
DA/DH. In the NPRM, the FAA had proposed to permit an EFVS operation
below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout only using a
straight-in precision instrument approach procedure or an approach
procedure with approved vertical guidance. This change in the final
rule arises out of comments asking the FAA to clarify what instrument
approach procedures can be used for EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout. This change in language does not constitute a change in
operational concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See Instrument Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-15B (2012)
(stating that the term ``minimums'' refers to the landing section of
an instrument approach chart, which sets forth the lowest altitude
and visibility approved for the instrument approach procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) objected to
proposed Sec. 91.176(a) because it was unclear which approach
procedures they could use to conduct EFVS operations. For the reasons
discussed in greater detail below, Sec. 91.176(a) no longer states
that EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout may be conducted using
only straight-in precision instrument approach procedures or approach
procedures with approved vertical guidance.
Boeing objected to limiting EFVS operations to ``straight-in''
approaches as defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary (PCG). Relying
on the PCG, Boeing asserted that a straight-in approach applies to an
approach with no procedure turn, and a straight-in landing refers to a
landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final
approach course following completion of an instrument approach. Boeing
contended that flying a procedure turn should not affect whether
someone could conduct EFVS operations. Boeing recommended that EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout be permitted using a ``straight-in
landing'' from a precision approach or an approach with approved
vertical guidance. Boeing recommended similar revisions to Sec.
91.176(b).
The FAA agrees with Boeing that operators could have concluded from
the proposal that a ``straight-in'' instrument approach procedure
refers to an approach with no procedure turn. This is because the term
``straight-in approach'' is used differently in the Aeronautical
Information Manual (AIM), the PCG, and the United States Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).\25\ The FAA did not intend to
limit EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to instrument approaches
where the final approach was begun without first having executed a
procedure turn. Therefore, Sec. 91.176(a) now requires that a person
must conduct an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout on an approach
with minimums that include a DA/DH. This revision ensures that a person
may conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout using precision
approaches or approaches with approved vertical guidance regardless of
whether the pilot first executes a procedure turn. Furthermore,
paragraph (a)(2)(i) clarifies that EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout are not permitted on circling approaches. Adding paragraph
(a)(2)(i) eliminates the confusion surrounding the terms straight-in
approach and straight-in landing, while achieving the same objective--
prohibiting EFVS operations using circling minimums. The FAA made
similar revisions to Sec. 91.176(b)(2)(i) as suggested by Boeing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The AIM provides the aviation community with basic flight
information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. The PCG
promotes a common understanding of terms used in the ATC system,
including terms which are intended for pilot/controller
communications. The TERPS consists of criteria for constructing
terminal instrument procedures. In the AIM, ``straight-in approach''
describes a procedure with straight-in landing minimums, without
regard to whether or not a procedure turn is required. In the PCG,
``straight-in approach'' means an instrument approach where the
final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure
turn, but not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or
made to straight-in landing minimums. The PCG defines a ``straight-
in landing'' as ``a landing made on a runway aligned within 30
degrees of the final approach course following completion of an
instrument approach.'' The use of ``straight-in approach'' in TERPS
criteria generally refers to an approach that is aligned with a
runway--not necessarily within 30 degrees--and for which straight-in
landing minimums are authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing also recommended that the FAA permit EFVS operations on
curved required navigation performance (RNP) approaches, which may have
a straight-in landing segment. Boeing stated that the use of curved RNP
approaches is increasing, that they are often used in mountainous
terrain where go-arounds could be more of an issue, and that EFVS could
improve safety and efficiency in such situations.
The FAA agrees that Sec. 91.176(a) and (b) should not prohibit
persons from conducting EFVS operations on curved RNP approaches that
have a straight-in landing segment. RNP approaches are approved,
vertically guided instrument approach procedures that are designed to
align with a specific runway and terminate with a DA. While their line
of minima is charted somewhat differently than other approaches with
straight-in ``S'' line of minima, the curved RNP line of minima
specifies a DA. Accordingly, Sec. 91.176(a) and (b) permit RNP
approaches. However, because EFVS performance may affect the specific
approaches that an operator may conduct, the FAA may define applicable
limitations in an operator's Operations Specifications (OpSpec),
Management Specifications (MSpec), or Letter of Authorization (LOA)
accordingly.
ALPA stated that the proposal would permit an EFVS operation to
touchdown and rollout on a ``straight-in precision instrument approach
procedure or an approach with approved vertical guidance,'' which would
seem to encompass an approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV).
However, APV describes a class of approach procedures defined in ICAO
Annex 6 as an approach procedure ``which utilizes lateral and vertical
guidance but does not meet the requirements established for precision
approach and landing operations.'' Based on this definition, a person
could conclude that an APV approach is a non-precision approach
procedure. The proposal indicated that EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout would not be permitted on non-precision approaches. ALPA noted
that this could cause confusion and recommended that the FAA clarify
what it meant by ``approved vertical guidance.''
The FAA agrees with ALPA that the phrase ``straight-in precision
approach procedure or an approach with approved vertical guidance'' is
confusing because persons could conclude that APV approaches are non-
precision approaches, which are not permitted under Sec. 91.176(a).
The FAA did not intend to prohibit persons from conducting EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout on APV approaches, which will have
a charted DA/DH. Therefore, for this reason and in addition to the
reasons Boeing raised, Sec. 91.176(a) now permits EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout on approaches with minimums that include a DA/DH.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(i)

[[Page 90138]]

specifies that persons conducting EFVS operations may not use circling
minimums. The FAA believes these revisions clarify that EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout may be conducted on APV approaches.
Sierra Nevada Corporation suggested editorial changes to proposed
Sec. 91.176(a) to clarify that persons must follow the requirements
specified in paragraph (a). The commenter recommended similar revisions
to Sec. 91.176(b). The FAA agrees with the commenter and adopted the
editorial changes in Sec. 91.176(a), which more clearly articulate the
regulatory requirements. The FAA did not, however, adopt the editorial
changes in Sec. 91.176(b) because they did not coincide with the
revised language in that paragraph.
Dassault Aviation asked whether the FAA would take into account the
new approach classifications described in the revised draft ICAO All
Weather Operations (AWO) Manual in the EFVS regulations. Dassault
Aviation stated that the draft AWO Manual describes 2D and 3D
approaches rather than ``precision approaches'' and ``approaches with
vertical guidance.'' The FAA is not including the ICAO terms or
definitions in this final rule as they are outside the scope of the
NPRM. The necessary references and descriptions in U.S. guidance
material have not been updated at this time, but the FAA notes that the
agency continues to work with ICAO on this subject.
Rockwell Collins commented that the FAA's statement in the proposal
about not permitting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on non-
precision approaches implies that non-precision approaches are no
longer an approved EFVS operation. The FAA disagrees. Section 91.176
contains two distinct types of EFVS operations. Section 91.176(a)
contains the new regulations, which enable EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout. Section 91.176(b) contains the regulations originally
found in Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), which enable EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE. Section 91.176(a) permits EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout only on approaches that have a DA/DH. However,
Sec. 91.176(b) continues to permit EFVS operations down to 100 feet
above the TDZE on non-precision approaches, just as Sec. 91.175(l) has
allowed these operations since 2004.
Finally, Gulfstream commented that Sec. 91.176(a) should allow
EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on the same instrument
approach procedures for which EFVS to 100 feet operations are
permitted, which would include approaches without published vertical
guidance. The FAA does not agree. The intent of Sec. 91.176(a) is to
provide for a stabilized descent and to ensure the aircraft is oriented
toward the runway of intended landing while conducting an EFVS
operation to touchdown and rollout. A stabilized descent reduces the
need to maneuver at low altitudes, thereby minimizing risk. Therefore,
the pilot must conduct the EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout on
an approach to a DA or DH using vertical guidance that is part of the
approach design.
The FAA notes, however, that operators who have been issued OpSpec/
MSpec/LOA C073, ``Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Instrument Approach
Procedures (IAP) Using Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) as a Decision
Altitude (DA)/Decision Height (DH),'' may conduct EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout on certain non-precision approaches that use an
MDA as a DA/DH in accordance with the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA.
OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073 authorizes operators to use an MDA as a DA/DH
using vertical navigation (VNAV) on certain instrument approach
procedures, which are listed in OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C052, ``Straight-In
Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing
Minima--All Airports.'' It has always been the FAA's intent to allow
EFVS operations on certain non-precision approaches in accordance with
OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073. However, as discussed above, we made changes to
proposed Sec. 91.176(a) as a result of comments. In making these
changes, Sec. 91.176(a) would have prohibited EFVS operations on
certain non-precision approaches conducted in accordance with OpSpec/
MSpec/LOA C073 because paragraph (a) would have restricted EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout to approach procedures with
minimums that included a DA or DH. Accordingly, the FAA is adding
language to Sec. 91.176(a) that allows an operator who is otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, such as through OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA
C073, to use an MDA as a DA/DH with vertical navigation on an
instrument approach procedure, to conduct an EFVS operation to
touchdown and rollout in an aircraft below the authorized MDA in
accordance with that authorization. When an operator is conducting an
EFVS operation in accordance with OpSpec/MSpec//LOA C073, that operator
must still meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of
Sec. 91.176.
The FAA notes that it is revising the regulatory language to be
performance based and allow for new technologies and approaches that
ensure a stabilized visual segment. Accordingly, this final rule allows
EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout on all approach procedures
with an authorized DA or DH, and it omits direct reference to the types
of approach procedures permitted and eliminates the term ``approved
vertical guidance.'' The FAA recognizes that many factors may affect an
operator's ability to conduct an EFVS operation. As stated in Sec.
91.176(a)(4), the FAA may prescribe additional limitations through an
OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA to ensure the safe conduct of EFVS operations.
b. Touchdown Zone
As proposed in the NPRM, for EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout, Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(v) requires the aircraft to continuously be
in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway
can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and
Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(vi) requires the descent rate to allow touchdown to
occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing.
Several commenters raised concerns about the term ``touchdown
zone'' in Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(vi). Boeing commented that the FAA needs
to define the term ``touchdown zone'' for purposes of EFVS operations
and pointed out that it is defined differently in different documents.
For example, the AIM defines the touchdown zone as the first 3,000 feet
of the runway beginning at the threshold, but RTCA DO-315A and its
revision, RTCA DO-315B, define the touchdown zone as the first 3,000
feet or first one-third of the runway, whichever is shorter. Boeing
asked the FAA for clarification because applicants and EFVS equipment
designers need to know what the performance expectations are for the
EFVS equipment. Dassault Aviation recommended that the FAA specify that
the touchdown zone is the first 3,000 feet or the first one-third of
the runway because the 3,000-foot metric may not be adequate for short
runways. An individual commenter expressed similar concerns and added
that ICAO defines touchdown zone as the portion of a runway, beyond the
threshold, where it is intended that a landing aircraft first contact
the runway. He also noted that other FAA documents contain guidance to
land in the first one-third of a runway. Given the operational
implications of EFVS operations, he recommended that the FAA revise the
EFVS rule and the AIM to emphasize that landing in the first third of
the

[[Page 90139]]

runway or the first 3,000 feet, whichever is less, should suffice for
almost all landing operations by fixed wing aircraft.
The FAA agrees with the commenters that, for the purpose of EFVS
operations, pilots should touch down in the first 3,000 feet or the
first one-third of the runway, whichever is shorter. However, the FAA
will not amend the definition of ``touchdown zone'' in the AIM, nor
define ``touchdown zone'' in the EFVS rule because the term has a
broader application than EFVS operations. The AIM contains the ICAO
definition of touchdown zone but also defines it as the first 3,000
feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. This definition is used
to determine TDZE in the development of straight-in landing minimums
for instrument approaches. The subject of landing performance is
complex and is affected by many variables such as available landing
runway, surface conditions, aircraft performance, operating procedures,
and many other factors. Furthermore, the use of the term touchdown zone
in Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(vi) is similar to its use in other sections of
the regulations that address both EFVS and other operations, such as
Sec. Sec. 91.175(c)(1), 121.651(c)(1), 121.651(d)(1), and
91.175(l)(1), the latter of which is being moved to Sec.
91.176(b)(2)(v) in this final rule.
Accordingly, although the FAA does not consider it appropriate to
amend the definition of ``touchdown zone'' in this rule, the FAA notes
that AC 20-167A specifies a relevant means of compliance to obtain
airworthiness approval for EFVS. AC 20-167A, paragraph 6-2(f)(4) states
that, during airworthiness performance demonstrations, persons should
demonstrate longitudinal touchdown performance within the first one-
third, or the first 3,000 feet of the runway, whichever is more
restrictive, and touchdown performance should be equivalent to or
better than that achieved in visual operations for the specific
aircraft.
c. Definition of ``EFVS Operation'' and Underlying Operational Concepts
Section 1.1 defines ``EFVS operation'' as an operation in which
visibility conditions require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural
vision to perform an approach or landing, determine enhanced flight
visibility, identify required visual references, or conduct the
rollout.
Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to clarify why the definition of an
EFVS operation includes determining enhanced flight visibility,
identifying required visual references, and conducting the rollout,
whereas the EFVS I and EFVS II operations referred to in AC 90-106A
only appear to address approaches below DA/DH and approaches to
touchdown.
The definition of an EFVS operation is consistent with the
operational descriptions in proposed AC 90-106A. While an EFVS can
provide situational awareness in any phase of flight, such use does not
constitute an EFVS operation unless visibility conditions require the
use of an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to perform an approach or
landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify required visual
references, or conduct the rollout. When flight visibility using
natural vision is less than what is required by the instrument approach
procedure being flown, a person may perform an EFVS operation. It would
be an EFVS operation in this scenario because the visibility conditions
require the person to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend
below DA/DH. More specifically, the person must use the EFVS to assess
that the enhanced flight visibility is not less than what is required
by the instrument approach procedure and to identify the required
visual references. The EFVS I and EFVS II operations referred to in
proposed AC 90-106A are consistent with the definition of an EFVS
operation, because they address operations where the visibility
conditions require the use of an EFVS for descent, namely, EFVS
operations. The FAA notes, however, that AC 90-106A no longer contains
the terms EFVS I and EFVS II. Instead, that AC uses terminology
consistent with Sec. 91.176.
d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and EFVS Operations
The Aerospace Medical Association commented that many airports are
installing new position, taxi, and obstruction lights that use LED
lights. It stated that night vision goggles (NVGs) and current EFVS
systems are unable to sense LED lights. As a result, aircrew using EFVS
to descend through the weather may not acquire visual aids or
obstruction lights that use LEDs. Central Management Services (CMS)
submitted a similar comment noting that EFVS is designed to sense
incandescent lights, not LED lights, and that as airports install LED
lighting to save money, the new lighting will eliminate the benefits of
EFVS. The commenter also stated that the FAA should require airports to
install Infrared (IR) emitters in all new LED airport lighting systems
and retrofit existing LED installations. Additionally, the commenter
stated that airports will not spend the money to install IR emitters on
their own, and it is only a matter of time before LEDs appear in
approach lighting and runway lighting systems.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding LED
lighting; however, the FAA disagrees that the installation of LED
lights will eliminate the benefits of EFVS and it does not mandate the
installation of specific lighting technologies. On January 4, 2007,
Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which
mandates phasing out certain incandescent lights for energy
conservation purposes. As a result, LED lighting is becoming more
prevalent in the NAS. While currently approved IR-based EFVS cannot
sense LED lighting, LEDs do not completely eliminate the benefits of
EFVS. The EFVS regulations provide for required visual references other
than lighting, such as markings, the runway threshold, and the runway
touchdown zone landing surface. Therefore, as long as a pilot can see
the required visual references using an EFVS, he or she may conduct an
EFVS operation. The FAA also notes that the presence of LEDs does not
make an EFVS operation unsafe. If the required visual references are
not distinctly visible and identifiable by the pilot, then the pilot
must execute a missed approach just as he or she would if the approach
were being conducted with natural vision instead of EFVS. The FAA has
addressed operational considerations associated with LED lighting in AC
90-106A and Information for Operators (InFO) 11004, Enhanced Flight
Vision System (EFVS), Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS), and Night Vision
Goggles (NVG) Compatibility with Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at
Airports and on Obstacles. Also, EFVS sensors based on other
technologies might be developed and approved in the future, and thus
would be unaffected by the installation of LED airport and runway
lighting.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FAA and industry are currently working together to
address EFVS and LED interoperability through the SAE G-20 Airport
Lighting Committee. This committee was tasked by the FAA to evaluate
and recommend potential solutions. To date, several prototype IR/LED
light fixtures have been developed and are currently being tested at
the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center. Additionally, in
October 2014, the FAA conducted an LED Symposium comprised of FAA,
other government agencies, SAE G-20, and industry participants. One
of the action items from the LED Symposium was to develop a
comprehensive operational test plan and conduct operational flights
and evaluations using EFVS, the LED approach lighting system at the
FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center, and prototype infrared
emitters.

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

[[Page 90140]]

Furthermore, the FAA does not mandate installation of specific
lighting technologies. Airport operators decide what approved lighting
technologies they will install at their airport location, and
incandescent and LED airport lighting technologies both meet the
requirements of Sec. 139.311, ``Marking, signs, and lighting.''
Lighting technology manufacturers have significantly reduced the
availability of traditional incandescent lighting technology for
airport applications as a result of the Energy Independence and
Security Act.
e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 Operators To Conduct EFVS Operations to
Touchdown and Rollout
Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) requires a person conducting EFVS
operations under part 91 to conduct the operation in accordance with an
LOA unless the operation is conducted under subpart K of part 91, or
conducted in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations.\27\ This slightly
differs from what was proposed in the NPRM, in that the FAA did not
propose to provide an exception from the LOA requirement for EFVS
operations conducted under part 91 in aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The FAA also added language to Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(viii) so
persons who are otherwise authorized to conduct EFVS operations
under other operating rules (i.e. subpart K of part 91 and parts
121, 125, 129, and 135) do not have to obtain an LOA to conduct part
91 operations such as ferry flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three commenters expressed concerns about requiring an LOA for part
91 operators to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. An
individual commented that requiring part 91 operators to obtain an LOA
is an unnecessary regulatory requirement; however, he supported the
FAA's proposal to require training and recent flight experience for
EFVS operations. Central Management Services and an individual
commented that pilots with a demonstrated history of EFVS training and
currency should not be required to obtain an LOA and should be
``grandfathered'' under the new EFVS regulation. Central Management
Services further stated that only pilots new to EFVS technology and
equipment should be required to obtain an LOA. Central Management
Services and an individual contended that there is precedence for
``grandfathering'' pilots with previous experience and pointed to those
paragraphs in Sec. 61.31 pertaining to pilots who had previous
experience operating pressurized aircraft above 25,000 feet and pilots
who had previous tailwheel experience. HAI, Central Management
Services, and an individual expressed concern about the length of time
it generally takes the FAA to issue an LOA.
Because of the performance-based structure of the EFVS regulations
under Sec. 91.176(a), the FAA finds it necessary to require part 91
operators, other than those conducting operations under part 91 subpart
K or in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate
under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and development or
showing compliance with regulations, to obtain an LOA to conduct EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout. The FAA has written Sec.
91.176(a) in a way that is performance-based rather than explicitly
specifying visibilities or other EFVS operating conditions and
limitations in rule language. The FAA has structured the regulations so
that it can manage the operating conditions and limitations for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout through an operator's OpSpec,
MSpec, or LOA. The FAA specifically structured the EFVS regulations
this way to provide flexibility and to enable the FAA to structure an
operator's authorization in a way that links equipage and system
performance to specific operational capabilities. This structure also
enables the FAA to respond more rapidly to new technology. Rather than
restricting the use of all EFVS to a rigid and limiting set of
visibility values and operating conditions and limitations, the FAA can
permit a range of EFVS operations as vision system technologies and
appropriate equipment certification guidance are developed. The FAA
believes this structure best accommodates future growth while
eliminating the need for additional rulemaking. Lastly, the FAA
acknowledges the commenters' concerns about the length of time it
generally takes to issue an LOA. The FAA notes that every effort is
made to process applications in a timely manner.
The FAA notes that Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(viii) now excepts EFVS
operations conducted under part 91 in aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations from the requirement
to obtain an LOA. These operations typically consist of a series of
flights conducted to collect data or show compliance with regulations
during EFVS certification activities using aircraft that have been
placed in the experimental category. The flights are authorized when
the FAA approves the program letter \28\ describing the flight
operations to be conducted and issues the experimental certificate with
operating limitations. The FAA authorization is time-limited and
carries an expiration date. Because these operations require FAA-
approval, are time-limited, and carry operating limitations specific to
the flights to be conducted, an LOA to conduct these operations is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ For an aircraft to be eligible for an experimental
certificate the aircraft must be registered and the applicant must
satisfy one or more of the purposes stated in 14 CFR 21.191.
Pursuant to Sec. 21.193, applicants for experimental certificates
must submit certain information with an application for
airworthiness certification. This information is referred to as the
``program letter.'' The FAA uses the program letter to assist in
establishing eligibility for an experimental certificate. The
program letter must contain the required items listed in Sec.
21.193 and be detailed enough to permit the FAA to prescribe the
conditions and limitations necessary to ensure safe operation of the
aircraft. ``Airworthiness Certification of Products and Articles,''
Order 8130.2H (Feb. 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. EFVS Operations Outside the U.S.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ A person serving as a required flightcrew member of a
foreign registered aircraft conducting operations under part 91 is
not required to obtain an LOA in order to conduct EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE because Sec. 91.176(b)(2) does not require
part 91 operators, other than those operating under part 91 subpart
K, to obtain FAA authorization to conduct EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(x) and (b)(2)(viii), any person
serving as a required flightcrew member for a foreign air carrier
subject to part 129 must conduct both EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE in accordance
with OpSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS. The appropriate International
Field Office (IFO) is responsible for authorizing part 129 foreign air
carriers for EFVS operations. AC 90-106A contains additional
information for EFVS operations conducted by foreign air carriers in
the United States.
Part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators, who are
required to obtain an MSpec under Sec. 91.176(b)(2)(vii)) are not
required to obtain an LOA in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.176(b). Verizon conducts EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under part 91 in the United
States and pointed out that the rules for EFVS operations to 100 feet
already in effect do not contain a provision for issuing an LOA to a
part 91 operator. Verizon commented that, because it does not have an
LOA, it has been unable to obtain approval from a foreign CAA to
conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet

[[Page 90141]]

above the TDZE in the foreign country. As a result, it has been unable
to use EFVS on its Gulfstream fleet for operational benefit outside of
the United States. Verizon requested that the FAA revise Sec.
91.176(b) to make provision for issuing an LOA to part 91 operators to
facilitate approval by foreign CAAs.
The FAA is not revising Sec. 91.176(b) as the commenter suggested.
Part 91 operators have been authorized to conduct EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE in the United States without an LOA for over 12
years. However, the FAA is aware that certain foreign CAAs require an
authorization from the State of the operator in order to obtain
approval to conduct EFVS operations in that country. The FAA is
developing a process to facilitate foreign CAA approval for part 91
operators. AC 90-106A contains additional information about
international EFVS operations.
g. EFVS Authorizations
Section 91.176(a) contains the regulations for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout, and Sec. 91.176(b) contains the regulations for
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Under Sec.
91.176(a)(2)(viii)-(xii), operators must obtain an LOA, MSpec, or
OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS in order to conduct EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout. Similarly, under Sec. 91.176(b)(2)(vii)-(x),
operators, except for part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K
operators) must obtain an LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec authorizing the use of
EFVS in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.
Thales asked the FAA to clarify whether it will issue authorizations
for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout separately from
authorizations for EFVS to 100 feet above the TDZE. Thales also asked
whether authorizations for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout
will include EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Lastly, Thales
asked if operators who are currently authorized to conduct operations
under Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) will have to reapply for authorization to
conduct EFVS operations under new Sec. 91.176.
The FAA will issue separate authorizations for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.
Operators who are currently authorized to conduct EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE, who wish to conduct additional operations now
permitted under this rule, may do so only if those operations are
authorized by their OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations.
Operators currently conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above
the TDZE may continue to conduct those operations under their existing
authorization until the FAA revises the operator's authorization to
conform to the applicable provisions of the EFVS final rule. Lastly, AC
90-106A, Section 10, ``Operational Approval Process for EFVS
Operations,'' provides guidance on the operational approval process and
obtaining authorizations for EFVS operations.
h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations
FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Dassault Aviation, Elbit Systems of
America, and Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that the FAA's notice
did not address takeoff credit for EFVS. They noted that the FAA
referenced existing processes through which takeoff credit for EFVS
could be approved and requested that the FAA clarify those processes.
In addition, Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA address when it
plans to develop operational requirements and associated guidance
material for takeoff using EFVS.
The FAA did not propose to enable the use of EFVS during takeoff
operations because it may already authorize these operations through
existing processes under Sec. 91.175(f), which prescribes civil
airport takeoff minimums for persons conducting operations under part
121, 125, 129, or 135. Under Sec. 91.175(f), a person conducting
operations under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 may obtain an authorization
from the FAA, such as an OpSpec or LOA, authorizing lower than standard
takeoff minimums, which may include the use of EFVS. The regulations,
however, do not prescribe any takeoff minimums for part 91 operators
(other than part 91, subpart K operators which under Sec. 91.1039(e)
have a minimum takeoff visibility of 600 feet). Therefore, part 91
operators (other than part 91, subpart K operators) may conduct takeoff
operations using EFVS without obtaining an authorization from the FAA
to conduct such operations.
It has come to the FAA's attention, however, that there is no
existing process under the regulations for part 91, subpart K operators
to obtain an authorization from the FAA to conduct takeoff operations
using EFVS when the visibility is less than 600 feet. The FAA is
therefore amending Sec. 91.1039(e) to permit part 91, subpart K
operators to conduct takeoff operations using EFVS when the visibility
is less than 600 feet, provided these operations are conducted in
accordance with the certificate holder's MSpec for EFVS operations.
The FAA is aware of the need for operational guidance regarding the
use of EFVS during takeoff operations and is currently working to
develop it.
i. Combined Vision Systems
A couple of commenters raised concerns about the use of synthetic
vision. The HAI commented that Sec. 91.176 and AC 90-106A should
address the use of synthetic vision, when combined with an EVS that
uses a real-time sensor image and appropriate flight information.
Rockwell Collins commented that there are future technologies that
could provide a real-time image of the external scene topography, which
may be based on a database or communicated position information. It
further commented that while these technologies may be considered
combined vision system (CVS) applications,\30\ the lines between
enhanced vision, synthetic vision, and combined vision may become even
less defined over time. Rockwell Collins suggested that only synthetic
vision systems which exclusively use a computer-generated image of the
external scene topography should not be addressed by the operational
requirements in this rule. Furthermore, Eurocopter and American
Eurocopter commented that the FAA should clarify whether a person could
use CVS as an EFVS provided the CVS satisfied part 91's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ A combined vision system involves a combination of SVS and
EVS or EFVS. See AC No. 20-167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced
Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and
Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA disagrees that Sec. 91.176 should address the use of
synthetic vision. The amendments to part 91 address new operational
benefits and requirements for EFVS only. However, a CVS consisting of
an enhanced flight vision system and synthetic vision could be approved
for EFVS operations if it met all of the requirements of the EFVS
regulations.
j. Use of the Term ``EFVS'' in Rule Language
Garmin International commented that the proposed rule language
unnecessarily references EFVS. It pointed out that in the future, part
91 might be updated to include additional technologies. Removing
references to EFVS, and using only references to Sec. 91.176, would
eliminate the necessity for future revisions of the regulations.
The FAA disagrees with Garmin. The FAA is retaining the references
to EFVS in the rule language because the rule is intended to address
new operational

[[Page 90142]]

benefits and requirements for EFVS; it is not intended to address other
systems that do not meet requirements applicable to EFVS.
k. Approach Plates and EFVS Operations
Under Sec. 91.176(a), EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout may
be conducted at any airport below the authorized DA/DH. Under Sec.
91.176(b), EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may be conducted
at any airport below the authorized DA/DH or MDA to 100 feet above the
TDZE. Additionally, EFVS operations using circling minimums are not
authorized pursuant to Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i).
The Aerospace Medical Association commented that an EFVS approach
plate should be developed that specifies the procedure, equipment
requirements, and visibility required to conduct EFVS operations. The
FAA disagrees because persons may conduct EFVS operations on any
instrument approach procedure that meets the criteria specified above.
Therefore, an approach plate specifically for EFVS operations is not
necessary.
The Aerospace Medical Association also asked whether the FAA will
issue a special rating for pilots who conduct EFVS operations. The
commenter stated that minimum qualification and experience should be
required for pilots to perform EFVS operations. It pointed out that
most airlines only permit captains to fly very low visibility takeoffs
and instrument landing system (ILS) Category IIIB landings and that
first officers must also have the same training.
The FAA will not issue a special rating to pilots for EFVS
operations. Instead, the FAA is establishing ground and flight training
requirements for EFVS operations in Sec. 61.66(a), (b), and (c), and
recent flight experience and refresher training requirements for EFVS
operations in Sec. 61.66(d) and (e). The FAA believes that the
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
of Sec. 61.66 are sufficient to ensure safe operations and that a
special rating for pilots who conduct EFVS operations is unnecessary.
Furthermore, Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports pertaining to
specific EFVS and aircraft installations have not specified that pilot
ratings for EFVS operations are necessary.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ FSBs make findings of operational suitability and recommend
master training, checking, and currency requirements applicable to
aircraft and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts
Airbus noted that the NPRM makes reference to ``EFVS-specific
callouts'' but does not provide a precise definition of the term.
Airbus requested that the FAA clarify where this term is defined in the
proposed rule.
The FAA does not define the term ``EFVS-specific callouts.'' The
FAA used this term twice in the NPRM to describe callouts, such as
``EFVS lights,'' which are unique to EFVS operations. Operators may
develop other EFVS-specific callouts related to crew coordination
activities during EFVS operations.
m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS Operating Requirements
Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that proposed Sec.
91.176(a)(3), which stated, ``No pilot operating under this section or
Sec. Sec. 121.651, 125.381, and 135.225 . . .'' should be changed to
state, ``No pilot operating under this section or Sec. Sec. 121.651,
125.381, or 135.225 . . .'' It also commented that the FAA should make
a similar change to proposed Sec. 91.176(b)(3) and that the FAA should
delete the words ``and land'' from Sec. 91.176(b)(3) because, under
Sec. 91.176(b), a pilot must land using natural vision and is not
permitted to rely on EFVS to land.
The FAA agrees with the commenter, and has revised ``and'' to
``or'' in Sec. 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) accordingly. However, the FAA
disagrees with the commenter that it should remove ``and land'' from
Sec. 91.176(b)(3) because that section contains the visibility and
visual reference requirements for using an EFVS to descend below DA/DH
or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE and for using natural vision to
descend below 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown.
n. Opposing Comments on the FAA's Proposal
One commenter opposed the proposal. A private individual commented
that the notice proposes a set of rules that are technically ambiguous,
does not provide adequate safety for air carrier operations, favors one
technology over other methods and technologies the commenter considers
to be better and safer, and is unnecessary to achieve the intended
benefits. The commenter believes that if these provisions are
implemented they will not enhance safety or operability over competing
and currently available technologies, and that the proposal could
result in additional and unnecessary safety vulnerability.
The commenter stated that IR-based systems cannot penetrate certain
fog conditions necessary for safe flight below a 100-foot height above
touchdown (HAT) and that certain radar systems, while potentially able
to marginally penetrate fog, have other severe resolution limitations.
The commenter believes that picture based systems can provide little
more than situational awareness and do not provide adequate closed loop
flight control capability for missions requiring air carrier levels of
accuracy, integrity, and availability. The commenter asserted that this
is why UAVs still routinely crash when flying based on visual control,
even with high quality visibility systems. The commenter further
asserted that if path definition and flight guidance are available, the
visual scene becomes unnecessary and is only an aid to situational
awareness.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter and believes that this final
rule provides an adequate level of safety for EFVS operations. EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE have been conducted for over 12
years. The FAA is not aware of any accidents over this time period in
which EFVS was a factor. This final rule extends these operations to
include EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and to permit
operators using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff
under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the
destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums for
the runway of intended landing. This final rule also provides specific
equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference
requirements for the conduct of EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. Additionally,
this final rule includes detailed and specific ground and flight
training requirements, and recent flight experience and proficiency
requirements for pilots intending to conduct EFVS operations. It also
provides updated requirements for pilot compartment view and equipment
for EFVS. Authorizations to conduct EFVS operations will contain
operating conditions and limitations appropriate to the EFVS operations
to be conducted and may prescribe additional equipment, operational,
and visibility and visual reference requirements to account for
specific equipment characteristics, operational procedures, or approach
characteristics. The authorizations to conduct the additional EFVS
operations as well as the new training, recent flight experience, and
proficiency requirements are

[[Page 90143]]

specifically intended to address the operating conditions and
limitations necessary to ensure the safe conduct of all EFVS
operations. The FAA's disposition of Boeing's comment in Section III.F
further discusses this matter.
The commenter also contended that the notice was unfair and
prejudiced and showed unjustified favoritism for one technology (EFVS,
EVS, or SVS) over better and safer competing technologies, such as
Autoland, Flight Guidance based HDDs, or Flight Guidance based HUDs,
that are already adequately and fairly treated by current regulations
and guidance. As an example, the commenter stated there is no safety
case justification for crediting EFVS, without also crediting the far
safer AUTOLAND LAND III and LAND II Modes, as well as HUD AIII modes,
for flight release or dispatch credit, as well as for approach
initiation or alternate minimums credit. The commenter believes that
this rule will expose the FAA to significant legal challenges by OEMs
and operators with far better and safer systems that are not being
offered equivalent or better benefits.
It is not the intent of the FAA to provide an unfair advantage to
one specific technology, but rather to address the conduct of EFVS
operations in this rule. Other operations were not the subject of the
proposal. The FAA notes, however, that the regulations have permitted
operators to conduct Category III operations to dispatch, flight
release, or takeoff under IFR and initiate and continue an approach in
lower than standard visibility conditions for many years. The FAA is
structuring similar dispatch, flight release, and approach initiation
benefits for EFVS operations in lower than standard visibility
conditions within the performance limitations of the EFVS equipment to
be used.
3. Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements
a. Visual References Below 100 Feet Above the TDZE During EFVS
Operations to Touchdown and Rollout
Under Sec. 91.176(a)(3)(i), a pilot conducting an EFVS operation
to touchdown and rollout may not operate an aircraft below the
authorized DA/DH and land unless that pilot determines that the
enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS is not less than the
visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used.
Additionally, Sec. 91.176(a)(3)(iii) permits a pilot to continue
descending below 100 feet above the TDZE and land using the enhanced
flight visibility provided by an EFVS, provided one of the following
visual references is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
The runway threshold, the lights or markings of the threshold, the
runway touchdown zone landing surface, or the lights or markings of the
touchdown zone. The requirement remains unchanged from the NPRM.
Thales commented that Sec. 91.176(a)(3)(iii) as proposed would
have permitted a pilot to use only enhanced flight visibility provided
by an EFVS to identify the required visual references at and below 100
feet above the TDZE. Thales stated that it is possible a pilot could
see the required visual references with natural vision, but not with
enhanced flight visibility. Thales recommended that Sec.
91.176(a)(3)(iii) permit a pilot to use either enhanced flight
visibility provided by an EFVS or natural vision to identify the
required visual references to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE. It
asserted that conducting a missed approach when a pilot sees the
required visual references with natural vision, but not with enhanced
flight visibility provided by an EFVS, would be unnecessary and
counterproductive.
The FAA disagrees with Thales that Sec. 91.176(a)(3)(iii) should
also allow the use of natural vision to identify the required visual
references to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE. If visibility
conditions improve after a pilot begins an EFVS operation, whether it
is conducted under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b), that pilot may continue
descending to a landing using natural vision provided he or she
continues the flight in accordance with existing flight rules based on
natural vision, with existing requirements under Sec. 91.175(c) for
operation below DA/DH or MDA, or with existing requirements under Sec.
91.176(b) for descending below 100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, if
an operator were conducting an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout
under Sec. 91.176(a), and could acquire the visual references with
natural vision at 100 feet above the TDZE, that operator would not have
to conduct a missed approach as Thales suggested so long as the
operator complies with the flight rules based on natural vision, Sec.
91.175(c), or Sec. 91.176(b).\32\ In order to continue descending
below 100 feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.176(b)(3)(iii), however,
the pilot conducting the EFVS operation must meet the training
requirements to conduct operations under Sec. 91.176(b). The FAA
anticipates that the majority of operators conducting EFVS operations
will be authorized to conduct EFVS operations under both Sec.
91.176(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Regardless of whether an operator is conducting an EFVS
operation under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b), the pilot must determine
that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of the EFVS is
not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach
procedure. 14 CFR 91.176(a)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During an EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout, the pilot must
comply with both paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(iii) at 100 feet above
the TDZE of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude.
Therefore, at 100 feet above the TDZE and below that altitude, the
enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS may not be less than the
visibility prescribed in the IAP being used. Additionally, the enhanced
flight visibility using EFVS must be sufficient for one of the visual
references in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to be distinctly visible and
identifiable to the pilot. The only exceptions to these requirements
would be when visibility improves such that a pilot could continue
descending to a landing under the conditions described in the previous
paragraph.
b. Enhanced Flight Visibility Requirement During EFVS Operations to 100
Feet Above the TDZE
Under Sec. 91.176(b)(3)(i), in order for a pilot to continue an
approach below the authorized MDA or DA/DH and land, the pilot must
determine that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of an
EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument
approach procedure being used. This requirement differs from what the
FAA proposed because it applies from descent below MDA or DA/DH until
touchdown,\33\ rather than to the portion of the approach from the
authorized MDA or DA/DH to 100 feet above the TDZE, as proposed. This
change resulted from our own continued review of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Section 91.175(l)(2) previously contained this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the NPRM, the FAA explained that the requirements of Sec.
91.176(b)(3)(iii) would be structured to conform to the original intent
of Sec. 91.175(l)(4). However, in clarifying the requirements of Sec.
91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4), the FAA inadvertently proposed a requirement
in Sec. 91.176(b)(3)(i) that was contrary to the original intent of
Sec. 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4). In the 2004 EFVS rule, the FAA intended
Sec. 91.175(l)(2) to provide an enhanced flight visibility requirement
equivalent to Sec. 91.175(c)(2), except that the pilot could use an
EFVS to determine ``enhanced flight visibility''

[[Page 90144]]

as compared to ``flight visibility'' with natural vision.\34\
Additionally, the FAA intended Sec. 91.175(l)(4) to require that, in
addition to determining that the enhanced flight visibility is not less
than that prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used,
at 100 feet above the TDZE and below, one of the required visual
references would have to be distinctly visible and identifiable without
relying on the EFVS for the pilot to continue to a landing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, NPRM, 68 FR 6802, 6805
(Feb. 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As evidenced from a legal interpretation dated September 10, 2010,
the pilot must maintain the flight visibility required in Sec.
91.175(c)(2) from descent below MDA or DA/DH until touchdown.\35\
Because the FAA intended the requirements of Sec. 91.176(b)(3)(i) and
(b)(3)(iii) to conform to the original intent of Sec. 91.175(l)(2) and
(l)(4), and the original intent of Sec. 91.175(l)(2) was to provide a
requirement equivalent to Sec. 91.175(c)(2), Sec. 91.176(b)(3)(i) now
requires the pilot to maintain the enhanced flight visibility from
descent below MDA or DA/DH until touchdown. Therefore, at 100 feet
above the TDZE and below, a pilot must meet the requirements of Sec.
91.176(b)(3)(i) and (iii) in order to continue to a landing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gary Thomey (Sept. 10, 2010);
see Takeoff and Landing Minimums, 46 FR 2280, 2282 (Jan. 8 1981)
(revising the requirement, then codified as Sec. 91.116, to ``make
it clear that the pilot must have this flight visibility from
descent below MDA or DH until touchdown'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Visual References for Rollout
As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 91.176(a)(3) specifies visibility
and visual reference requirements for EFVS operations below the
authorized DA/DH and for EFVS operations below 100 feet above the TDZE.
A couple of commenters raised concerns regarding the lack of visibility
and visual reference requirements for rollout during an EFVS operation.
Thales proposed that the FAA either clarify the rollout requirements or
add visibility and visual reference requirements to the regulations.
Sierra Nevada Corporation contended that the required visual references
specified in Sec. 91.176(a)(3)(iii) are typically behind the aircraft
by the time the aircraft slows to a safe taxi speed. It asserted that
the FAA should specify an additional set of visual references for
rollout, such as those in RTCA DO-341, Section 3.1.3.4, which includes
visual references for rollout, such as the centerline lights or
markings and the runway edge lights or markings, if installed and
serviceable, or other visual references which accurately indicate the
runway edges and the runway centerline.
The FAA finds it unnecessary to specify visual references for
rollout by regulation because the operating rules require sufficient
forward visibility in order to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout, and an applicant must demonstrate that the EFVS can safely
perform the rollout task during the equipment certification process.
Under Sec. 91.176(a), a pilot must determine that the enhanced flight
visibility observed by using an EFVS is not less than what is
prescribed in the IAP before descending below DA/DH to touchdown. This
requirement in addition to the visibility and visual reference
requirements specified in Sec. 91.176(a)(3) ensures that sufficient
forward visibility exists for the pilot to safely conduct the approach,
landing, and rollout. Furthermore, during the certification flight
test, an applicant will have to demonstrate that he or she can use the
EFVS to safely perform rollout tasks. Additionally, the FAA may include
visibility and visual reference requirements for rollout in an
operator's authorization to conduct EFVS operations, if necessary. The
FAA notes that AC 20-167A provides a means of compliance for an EFVS to
obtain airworthiness approval and contains guidance applicable to the
evaluation of EFVS performance during rollout to a safe taxi speed.
d. Controlling Runway Visual Range (RVR) Values
Section 91.176 does not specify which runway visual range (RVR)
values are controlling for operational purposes. Therefore, Dassault
Aviation asked the FAA to clarify whether the touchdown zone, mid, or
rollout RVR is controlling when more than one RVR value is provided for
the runway of intended landing. The FAA will specify which RVR values
are controlling for operational purposes in an operator's OpSpec,
MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations. The FAA is also providing guidance
on this topic in AC 90-106A.
e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative Visual Aids
An individual commented that the NPRM addresses EFVS operations in
a performance-based manner but provides no performance-based equivalent
for light components. The commenter stated that emitters of various
types that might be interoperable with EFVS sensor technologies could
be implemented as an alternative or supplement to traditional lighting
systems or visual aid components. The commenter further stated that
emitters of this type could be useful in conditions of below Category
II weather or used in locations where approach lighting systems are not
possible, such as when an airport is surrounded by water. The commenter
recommended that the FAA revise the visual reference language in Sec.
91.176 to permit the use of emitter technologies in addition to the
visual references currently specified.
While emitters that might be interoperable with EFVS sensor
technologies could be implemented as an alternative or supplement to
traditional lighting systems or visual aid components, specifying a
performance based equivalent for light components is outside the scope
of this rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that Sec. Sec.
91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) do not prohibit the use of emitter technologies
to facilitate the identification of the required visual references.
f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility Requirements of Sec. Sec.
91.155 and 91.157 During Rotorcraft Operations
HAI commented that the FAA should permit rotorcraft to use EFVS to
provide the required visibility necessary to operate under Sec. Sec.
91.155 and 91.157. The FAA is not adopting this suggestion because it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to
permit such operations and others have not had an opportunity to
comment.

D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the
TDZE (Sec. 91.176(b))

1. Methods for Conducting Approaches During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet
Above the TDZE
Section 91.176(b) contains the regulations for EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE. These requirements were previously located in
Sec. 91.175(l) and (m). A commenter noted that Sec. 91.176(b) does
not contain a regulatory requirement to use vertical guidance to fly a
non-precision approach and that, upon meeting the visual reference
requirements, a pilot could descend immediately and as rapidly as
desired to 100 feet above the TDZE rather than descend along a
vertically guided continuous descent profile. The commenter, therefore,
recommended that Sec. 91.176(b) restrict EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the TDZE to approaches that have approved vertical guidance. The
commenter also noted that Sec. 91.176 does not require descent along
an obstacle-free path and that EFVS was not designed to detect
obstacles, but it is important for a pilot to ensure that a descent is
accomplished

[[Page 90145]]

along a path known to be obstacle-free, such as by using another
approach to the same runway that has a DA, or by using a VASI, PAPI, or
other information. The commenter therefore recommended that proposed
Sec. 91.176(b)(2)(iii) require the aircraft to be continuously in a
position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can
be made along an obstacle-free path at a normal rate of descent using
normal maneuvers.
Central Management Services shared similar concerns. It noted that,
while it doubted any Part 141 or Part 142 facility advocated the ``dive
and drive'' method for conducting straight-in, non-precision
approaches, the EFVS rule does not prohibit it, and therefore
recommended that the FAA do so in Sec. 91.176.
The FAA finds that these comments are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. The FAA did not propose these restrictions to Sec.
91.176(b); therefore, other persons did not have an opportunity to
comment. Additionally, persons have been conducting EFVS operations to
100 feet above the TDZE safely for over 12 years under Sec. 91.175(l)
and (m), which did not contain such restrictions.\36\ AC 90-106A
provides guidance on how to safely conduct EFVS operations on
approaches with an MDA using straight-in landing minimums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ In the 2004 EFVS final rule, ``Enhanced Flight Vision
Systems,'' 69 FR at 1625 (Jan. 9, 2004), the FAA explained that the
obstacle risk for a non-precision approach using EFVS is
significantly mitigated by only permitting EFVS operations on
straight-in approaches. The FAA further noted that a pilot could
maintain obstacle clearance by using the recommended procedures to
fly a straight-in instrument approach procedure with an MDA, and by
using the FPV cue and FPARC displayed by the EFVS to monitor and
maintain the desired vertical path when operating below the MDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, and Refresher Training
Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec. 61.66)

The FAA has reorganized the pilot requirements proposed in
Sec. Sec. 61.31 and 61.57 and consolidated them in new Sec. 61.66.
Section 61.66 contains the EFVS ground and flight training
requirements, which were proposed as Sec. 61.31(l), and the EFVS
recent flight experience requirements, which were proposed as Sec.
61.57(h) and (i).\37\ The FAA is consolidating the EFVS training
requirements with the EFVS recent flight experience requirements into a
single section for organizational clarity. The FAA believes that
consolidating these requirements into a single new section in part 61,
which is comprised solely of the EFVS pilot requirements, will help
facilitate compliance with the regulations by making them more
accessible and comprehensible to pilots. The FAA has also made
modifications to these requirements as a result of comments and as a
result of the FAA's own continued review of the proposal, which this
section will discuss in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ As discussed in section III.E.2, Sec. 61.66(e) clarifies
the proficiency check requirements that were proposed in Sec.
61.57(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following table outlines each requirement, its previously
proposed section in the NPRM, its corresponding section in new Sec.
61.66, and a summary of the significant changes from the proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement NPRM Final rule Change from NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Training.................... Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(a)(1).... Clarifies that a person
61.31(l)(1). must receive the ground
training from an
authorized training
provider under an FAA
approved training program.
Clarifies that the EFVS
ground training must be
appropriate to the
category of aircraft for
which the person is
seeking the EFVS
privilege.
Ground Training Subjects........... Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(a)(2)(i)- Adds the following ground
61.31(l)(2)(i)-(vii). (viii). training subject: EFVS
sensor imagery and
required aircraft flight
information and flight
symbology.
Flight Training.................... Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(b)(1).... Clarifies that a person
61.31(l)(3). must receive the flight
training from an
authorized training
provider under an FAA
approved training program.
Clarifies that the EFVS
flight training must be
provided in the category
of aircraft for the EFVS
operation to be conducted.
Flight Training Tasks.............. Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(b)(2)(i)- No significant changes from
61.31(l)(4)(i)-(viii). (viii). NPRM.
Supplementary EFVS Training........ Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(c)....... Clarifies that
61.31(l)(6). supplementary EFVS
training, previously
proposed as differences
training, consists of both
ground and flight
training.
Clarifies that a person
must receive supplemental
EFVS training in the
category of aircraft for
the EFVS operation to be
conducted.
No longer permits a pilot
to receive a proficiency
check in lieu of
supplementary EFVS
training.
Recent Flight Experience: EFVS..... Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(d)....... Clarifies that the EFVS
61.57(h). recent flight experience
requirements must be
obtained in the category
of aircraft for which the
person is seeking the EFVS
privilege.
EFVS Refresher Training............ Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(e)(1).... Calls the mechanism by
61.57(i). which a person
reestablishes EFVS
currency a ``refresher
course'' rather than a
``proficiency check.''
Provides pilots with an
additional 6 months to
satisfy the EFVS recent
flight experience
requirements.
Individuals who may conduct EFVS Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(e)(2).... Requires EFVS refresher
Refresher Training. 61.57(i)(2). training to be conducted
by an authorized training
provider.
Military Pilots and Former Military ...................... Sec. 61.66(f)....... Adds a new paragraph that
Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. specifically addresses
military pilots and former
military pilots in the
U.S. Armed Forces.

[[Page 90146]]

Use of Full Flight Simulators (FFS) Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(g)....... Creates a new paragraph,
61.31(l)(5). which contains the
Proposed Sec. requirements for using a
61.57(h)(2). FFS to meet the flight
Proposed Sec. training, recent flight
61.57(i). experience, and refresher
training requirements.
Clarifies that each FFS
must be qualified and
maintained in accordance
with part 60, or be a
previously qualified
device, as permitted in
accordance with Sec.
60.17.
Clarifies that each FFS
must be approved by the
Administrator for the
tasks and maneuvers.
Grandfather clause and compliance Proposed Sec. Sec. 61.66(h)(4) Creates two provisions for
date for persons conducting EFVS 61.31(l)(7)(ii). Sec. 91.176(b)(4). clarity. Section
operations to 100 feet above the 61.66(h)(4) contains the
TDZE. grandfather clause, and
Sec. 91.176(b)(4)
contains the compliance
date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec.
61.66(a), (b) and (c))
Under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b), no person may manipulate the controls
of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS
operation as specified in Sec. 91.176(a) or (b) unless that person has
received and logged ground and flight training for the EFVS operation
under a training program \38\ approved by the Administrator and
obtained a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized
training provider certifying that the person has satisfactorily
completed the ground and flight training. Section 61.66(a) also
requires a person serving as a required pilot flightcrew member (who
does not manipulate the controls) during an EFVS operation to touchdown
and rollout to comply with the ground training requirements in
paragraph (a). EFVS training must include ground training on the
subjects set forth in Sec. 61.66(a)(2) and flight training on the
tasks set forth in Sec. 61.66(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Under part 121 and part 135, the term ``training program''
is a broad term that encompasses all curriculums in the air
carrier's approved training program. Therefore, part 119 certificate
holders operating under part 121 or part 135 would not have an EFVS
training program; they would have an EFVS training curriculum as
part of their approved training program. For purposes of part 119
certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135, the term
``training program'' in Sec. 61.66 means training curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the proposal, under the final rule, the
Administrator may approve a training program that includes ground and
flight training for one EFVS operation (e.g., Sec. 91.176(a) or (b))
or both EFVS operations (Sec. 91.176(a) and (b)). If a person receives
training and an endorsement for only one EFVS operation in Sec.
91.176, then seeks to conduct an additional EFVS operation for which
that person has not received training, Sec. 61.66(c) requires that
person to receive ground and flight training and an endorsement
appropriate to the additional EFVS operation to be conducted. AC 61-65
will contain sample endorsements for use by authorized training
providers when endorsing logbooks or training records pursuant to Sec.
61.66(a)(1), (b)(1) and (c)(2).
The training requirements in new Sec. 61.66(a), (b), and (c)
differ slightly from what was proposed in the NPRM as a result of
comments and revisions, which are discussed in more detail below.
a. Separate Training for EFVS Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE and
EFVS Operations to Touchdown and Rollout
Dassault Aviation commented that it favors separate training for
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout. It also commented that training for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout should automatically include
training for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.
The FAA will not require separate training programs for the two
types of EFVS operations, nor will it require training for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout to automatically include training
for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA has adopted
ground and flight training requirements with sufficient flexibility to
achieve both the desired safety benefits and training efficiencies.
While the rule does not require separate training for the two types of
EFVS operations, the FAA notes that the training must address the
operations the EFVS operator is authorized to conduct. Under certain
circumstances, an operator authorized to conduct EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout might find it necessary to conduct EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. For example, if the pilot
monitoring display is inoperative, the flightcrew may not conduct an
EFVS operation to touchdown and rollout, but they may conduct an EFVS
operation to 100 feet above the TDZE provided they meet all applicable
regulatory requirements, including training to conduct EFVS operations
to 100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, an operator may elect for its
pilots to receive training for both types of EFVS operations.
b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training
A couple of commenters raised concerns about aircraft-specific EFVS
training. GAMA commented that proposed Sec. 61.31 should specifically
enable a pilot who is trained in EFVS operations on one airplane model
to be EFVS-qualified on multiple airplane types. GAMA noted that FAA
FSBs have authorized pilots trained on one airplane model for EFVS to
be EFVS-qualified on another airplane, such as on the Falcon 900 and
Falcon 2000. GAMA further noted that proposed Sec. 61.31 did not
recognize the FSB credit that currently exists.
Rockwell Collins commented that it assumed the training proposed by
the FAA could be performed during ground/simulator training using a
``generic'' aircraft type, given that initial EFVS training includes an
introduction to EFVS image characteristics, such as infrared-based
sensor imagery, determining EFVS-equivalent visibility, image
artifacts, and other items. It asked whether training could carry over
to multiple aircraft types with similar EFVS installations and noted
that this could allow training companies to provide generic training
packages.
Section 61.66, proposed as Sec. 61.31, does not reflect GAMA's
request because Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) do not require a pilot to
receive training on each specific combination of EFVS and aircraft
model for which the pilot is qualified to fly. Accordingly, as Rockwell
Collins requested, training obtained pursuant to Sec. 61.66 may carry

[[Page 90147]]

over to multiple aircraft types with similar EFVS installations. The
intent of Sec. 61.66 is to establish minimum standards for a broad
range of operators who may be operating various types of aircraft and
EFVS equipment. The FAA has revised the language in Sec. 61.66,
however, to make clear that the training and endorsements for EFVS
operations must be specific to category of aircraft. This requirement
is consistent with the language proposed in Sec. 61.57(i) requiring an
EFVS proficiency check to be accomplished in the category of aircraft
for the EFVS privilege sought.
In addition to the training requirements of part 61, an operator
must comply with any training requirements specified in the part under
which the operator conducts operations. Additionally, an operator's
OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations may contain specific training
requirements. The FAA notes that this rule provides operators with the
flexibility to develop training programs that address their specific
operational requirements. Furthermore, for part 121, 135, and 91
subpart K operators, the FAA requires that a pilot obtain training in
the EFVS-equipped aircraft in which the pilot expects to conduct
operations, and that an operator's approved training program address
training and proficiency for each specific combination of EFVS and
aircraft model applicable to that operator and its EFVS operations. FSB
reports also provide recommendations for training, checking, currency,
recent flight experience, and special emphasis areas.
c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an EFVS in Flight Operations
The Aerospace Medical Association commented that during B-787
training, one of their members experienced a habituation period when
utilizing the HUD as a primary flight display and the instrument panel
as secondary information. It believes the FAA should consider a similar
habituation period for EFVS. The commenter stated that the habituation
period should provide pilots with enough time to become accustomed to
EFVS prior to flying solo or during actual instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC). It asserted that use of simulators should also be
considered for training.
The FAA believes that the time necessary to meet the EFVS training
requirements will provide pilots with the necessary habituation period.
Furthermore, Sec. 61.66(g) already states that a pilot may use a level
C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with a daylight visual
display and an EFVS to meet the flight training requirements of Sec.
61.66(b).
Boeing commented that Sec. 61.31(l) already exists and contains
the exceptions to the requirement for a type rating. Boeing recommended
that the FAA move the existing regulations in Sec. 61.31(l) to Sec.
61.31(m) and use Sec. 61.31(l) for the proposed additional training
required for EFVS operations. Boeing further stated that this will
prevent having two different sections with the same number. This
revision is unnecessary because the FAA is adopting new Sec. 61.66
instead of proposed Sec. 61.31.
d. Revisions To Clarify Training Requirements in Sec. 61.66(a), (b)
and (c)
Section 61.66(a), (b), and (c) now require pilots to receive EFVS
ground, flight, and supplementary training from an ``authorized
training provider'' under an FAA approved training program.\39\ The FAA
is using the term ``authorized training provider,'' rather than
``authorized instructor'' as proposed in the NPRM, to underscore that
all EFVS training must be accomplished in accordance with an FAA
approved training program under 14 CFR parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121,
125, 135, 141, or 142. This revision is consistent with the NPRM, which
explained that the FAA would require persons to receive EFVS training
under an FAA approved training program to ensure that pilots are
trained and tested to a specific standard and that the training program
content supports the EFVS operation to be conducted. Because the
proposed rule always intended for EFVS training to take place under an
approved training program, the only authorized instructors would be
those instructors working for training providers with approved training
programs, such as instructors employed by part 141 pilot schools, part
142 training centers, and part 119 certificate holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Unless otherwise excepted in Sec. 61.66(h), the training
requirements in Sec. 61.66(a), (b), and (c) apply to any pilot
conducting EFVS operations under 14 CFR 91.176, including pilots
conducting operations under part 91, part 91 subpart K, part 121,
part 125, or part 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While an FAA approved training program is not required under part
125, Sec. 61.66 requires a part 125 operator to accomplish EFVS
training in accordance with an FAA approved training program. A part
125 operator may accomplish Sec. 61.66 EFVS training in accordance
with an FAA approved training program offered at a part 141 pilot
school or a part 142 training center.\40\ Alternatively, a part 125
operator may submit an EFVS training program to the FAA for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ However, based on the special rules in Sec. 125.296, a
part 125 operator may not use a part 141 pilot school to meet
training, testing, or checking requirements under part 125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under part 141, the FAA may approve an EFVS training course in
accordance with Sec. 141.11 and appendix K to part 141, paragraph 9,
Special Operations Course, which contains the minimum curriculum
requirements for both aeronautical knowledge and flight training
pertaining to special operations courses. A special operations course
for EFVS must also meet the applicable parts of FAA regulations that
pertain to that special operations course. Accordingly, an EFVS
training course must meet the requirements of Sec. 61.66 in addition
to the minimum curriculum requirements in appendix K to part 141.
Because training programs already exist for persons conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, there is already a cadre of
training instructors qualified to administer training on the subjects
and tasks set forth in Sec. 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) that are applicable
to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.
As a result of this final rule, new training programs for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout will be developed. Section 61.66
requires persons to obtain EFVS training from an authorized training
provider under an FAA approved training program. However, before
persons can receive training on EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout from an authorized training provider, there must first be a
cadre of training instructors qualified and authorized to administer
the training. The FAA recognizes that there will be an initial period
when training providers may provide training and evaluation without
meeting certain qualification requirements in order to establish an
initial cadre of instructors. AC 90-106A contains the FAA's policy for
initiating and building a cadre of authorized training instructors
qualified to administer training on EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout.
The FAA added language to Sec. 61.66(a)(1) and (b)(1) to make
clear that the ground and flight training for EFVS operations, and the
respective endorsements, must be specific to the category of aircraft
for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. It has always been
the FAA's intent to require the EFVS training to be category specific.
This requirement is consistent with the language proposed in Sec.
61.57(i) requiring an EFVS proficiency check to be accomplished in the
category of aircraft for the EFVS privilege sought.

[[Page 90148]]

The FAA is reorganizing the supplementary EFVS training
requirements in Sec. 61.66(c) (proposed as differences training) to be
more consistent with Sec. 61.66(a) and (b).\41\ Accordingly, Sec.
61.66(c)(1) requires a person to receive and log the ground and flight
training specified in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) under an FAA approved
training program appropriate to the EFVS operation to be conducted, and
Sec. 61.66(c)(2) requires that person to obtain a logbook or training
record endorsement from an authorized training provider certifying the
person is proficient in the use of EFVS for the EFVS operations to be
conducted. These revisions are consistent with proposed Sec.
61.31(l)(6)(i), which would have required the person to obtain the
flight training and endorsement specified in Sec. 61.66(b) appropriate
to the additional EFVS operations to be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ In the NPRM, the FAA described the additional EFVS training
requirements in proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(6) as differences training.
Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided not to use the term
``differences training'' because it is a term of art used by air
carriers, which may cause confusion in the context of additional
EFVS training. Under part 121 subpart N and part 135 subpart H,
differences training is required if a flightcrew member will serve
on a variation of a particular aircraft type that has pertinent
differences from the base aircraft type. To avoid confusion, the FAA
is describing the additional EFVS training requirements as
``supplementary EFVS training.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is requiring the supplemental EFVS training in Sec.
61.66(c) to consist of ground and flight training on the subjects and
tasks specified in (a)(2) and (b)(2) appropriate to the additional EFVS
operation to be conducted, as opposed to only flight training which was
what the NPRM proposed in Sec. 61.31(l)(6). This change to the
regulatory text is consistent with the discussion in the NPRM,\42\
where the FAA explained that a pilot trained to conduct EFVS operations
to 100 feet above the TDZE would not be required to complete the full
training program applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout
if he or she later decided to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout. Instead, he or she would be required to complete only that
portion of the full training program addressing the differences between
the two operations. A full training program consists of both ground and
flight training. The FAA therefore intended the supplemental EFVS
training to consist of both ground and flight training. The FAA
inadvertently omitted ground training, however, in its proposed
regulatory text. The FAA is adding ground training to Sec. 61.66(c) to
clarify that supplemental EFVS training includes ground training on the
subjects specified in Sec. 61.66(a)(2) in addition to flight training
on the tasks specified in Sec. 61.66(b)(2) appropriate to the
additional EFVS operation to be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ ``Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View
Requirements for Vision Systems.'' 78 FR at 34943 (June 11, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is also requiring the supplemental EFVS training to be
specific to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking
the EFVS privilege, which is consistent with the training requirements
in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) and with the recent flight experience and
refresher training requirements in Sec. 61.66(d) and (e).
The FAA is not permitting a person to receive a proficiency check
in lieu of the supplemental EFVS training, as originally proposed in
Sec. 61.31(l)(6)(ii). Nor is the FAA permitting a person to receive a
proficiency check in lieu of the initial ground and flight training, as
originally proposed in Sec. 61.31(l)(7). The FAA is not adopting these
proposed proficiency checks because they cannot be applied as a
practical matter and they are inconsistent with the FAA's reasons for
establishing EFVS training requirements. During a proficiency check, a
pilot must satisfactorily perform certain flight tasks. Prior to being
checked on the flight tasks, a pilot must first receive training on the
flight tasks. It is therefore impractical to permit a proficiency check
on the tasks listed in Sec. 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of initial training on
those tasks. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the FAA, EFVS
manufacturers, and operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft have all
recognized the need for specialized training in the use of EFVS. The
FAA proposed to establish EFVS training requirements to ensure that
pilots meet minimum requirements to operate EFVS equipment, that they
are trained and tested to a standard, and that an appropriate level of
public safety is maintained. The FAA now recognizes that proposed Sec.
61.31(l)(6) and (l)(7) would have permitted a pilot who is untrained
and inexperienced with the use of EFVS to receive a proficiency check
on the tasks set forth in Sec. 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of receiving the
initial training on those tasks. This was not the FAA's intent as such
a requirement would contravene the FAA's reasons for establishing EFVS
training requirements. The FAA notes, however, that pilots who have
satisfactorily completed training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above
the TDZE prior to this final rule will not be required to receive
duplicative training under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b). Instead, those
pilots will be given credit for their previously obtained training
pursuant to Sec. 61.66(h)(4), which is discussed in more detail below.
The FAA is also revising Sec. 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2)(vii) as a
result of a comment raised by GAMA. GAMA recommended that the FAA align
the terminology in proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(4)(vii) with the terminology
``EFVS image,'' ``EFVS sensor imagery,'' and ``flight information and
flight symbology,'' used in Sec. 91.176. Sections 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B)
and (a)(1)(i)(E) now use the phrase ``aircraft flight information and
flight symbology,'' rather than ``aircraft flight symbology.'' The FAA
agrees with GAMA that the terminology should be consistent in part 61.
The FAA is therefore revising Sec. 61.66(b)(2)(vii), previously
proposed as Sec. 61.31(l)(4)(vii), to include a reference to required
aircraft flight information and flight symbology, as used in Sec.
91.176. For consistency, the FAA is also revising Sec. 61.66(a)(2),
previously proposed as Sec. 61.31(l)(2), by adding new paragraph (ii)
to include EFVS sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information
and flight symbology as subjects of ground training for EFVS
operations.
Additionally, the FAA is revising Sec. 61.66(a)(2)(i) to read
``Airplane Flight Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations''
instead of ``AFM limitations'' because EFVS operations apply to both
airplanes and rotorcraft. The reference to ``Airplane Flight Manual or
Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations'' includes the limitations found
in the Airplane Flight Manual Supplement or Rotorcraft Flight Manual
Supplement as well as those found in the AFM or RFM.
The FAA is also revising certain terms and concepts in Sec. 61.66
to be consistent with current regulations, including revisions
resulting from several rulemaking actions that were published after the
EFVS proposal was published.\43\ The FAA is replacing the terminology
``other endorsement'' with ``training record endorsement'' in Sec.
61.66(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and (c)(2) for consistency with
terminology used in other sections of part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ These rulemaking actions include the final rules ``Pilot
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier
Operations,'' 78 FR 42374 (Jul. 15, 2013), ``Certified Flight
Instructor Flight Reviews; Recent Pilot in Command Experience;
Airmen Online Services,'' 78 FR 56828 (Sept. 16, 2013), and
``Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers,'' 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).

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

[[Page 90149]]

2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS Refresher Training for Persons
Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec. 61.66(d) and (e))
Section 61.66(d) requires a person to perform and log six
instrument approaches as the sole manipulator of the controls using an
EFVS under any weather conditions in the category of aircraft for which
the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. In order to manipulate the
controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft
during an EFVS operation, these six instrument approaches must be
accomplished within six calendar months preceding the month of the
flight. These instrument approaches may be performed in either day or
night conditions. One approach must terminate in a full stop landing.
For a person authorized to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout, that person must conduct the full stop landing using the EFVS.
These requirements were previously proposed in Sec. 61.57(h). The FAA
is adopting these requirements in new Sec. 61.66(d) with two
substantive changes. First, the FAA is clarifying that recent flight
experience may be performed in either day or night conditions. Second,
to be consistent with the requirement originally proposed for
proficiency checks in Sec. 61.57(i), the FAA is clarifying that recent
flight experience must be performed in the same category of aircraft
for which the pilot holds EFVS privileges under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b).
Section 61.66(e) requires a person who has failed to meet the
recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) for more than
six calendar months to reestablish EFVS currency only by satisfactorily
completing an approved EFVS refresher course in the category of
aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. The EFVS
refresher course must consist of the subjects and tasks specified in
Sec. 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) applicable to the EFVS operations to be
conducted. Section 61.66(e) differs from the proposal in the NPRM in
that it more closely resembles the instrument proficiency check
requirements in Sec. 61.57(d) and rather than calling the mechanism by
which a person reestablishes EFVS currency a proficiency check, the FAA
is calling it a refresher course.
In the NPRM, proposed Sec. 61.57(i) would have required a person
who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements in proposed
Sec. 61.57(h) to pass an EFVS proficiency check to act as PIC in an
EFVS operation or to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an
EFVS operation. However, the discussion of proposed Sec. 61.57(i) in
the NPRM obscured the proposed requirement by stating that a person
acting as PIC or a person manipulating the controls of an aircraft in
an EFVS operation would either have been required to meet the proposed
EFVS recent flight experience requirements or pass an EFVS proficiency
check. Because of the statement in the NPRM, proposed Sec. 61.57(i)
could have been interpreted one of two ways. Proposed Sec. 61.57(i)
could have meant that a pilot who did not meet the recent flight
experience requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57(h) could have
reestablished EFVS currency only by completing an EFVS proficiency
check. Alternatively, proposed Sec. 61.57(i) could have meant that a
pilot who did not meet the recent flight experience requirements in
Sec. 61.57(h) could have reestablished EFVS currency by either: (1)
Satisfying the EFVS recent flight experience requirements in proposed
Sec. 61.57(h); or (2) completing an EFVS proficiency check pursuant to
Sec. 61.57(i).
The FAA's intent was to require a person who did not meet the
recent flight experience requirements to reestablish EFVS currency only
by completing an EFVS proficiency check, similar to the instrument
proficiency check requirements in Sec. 61.57(d). Upon further
reflection, the FAA has decided that the term proficiency check is
inappropriate in the context of reestablishing EFVS currency. Unlike an
instrument proficiency check, which is based on the instrument
practical test standards, an EFVS proficiency check would not have been
based on any standards. Rather, an EFVS proficiency check would have
consisted of the training tasks specified in proposed Sec. 61.31(l).
Because proposed Sec. 61.57(h) would have resulted in a person
receiving additional training rather than a proficiency check based on
performance standards, the FAA has decided to call it an EFVS refresher
course. Additionally, because proposed Sec. 61.57(h) would have
required the additional training to consist of the tasks in proposed
Sec. 61.31(l), which proposed both ground and flight training, the FAA
is requiring the EFVS refresher course to consist of the ground
subjects and the flight tasks specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2)
as applicable to the EFVS operation to be conducted.
To avoid ambiguity, the FAA is restructuring Sec. 61.66(e) to more
closely resemble the language for instrument recent flight experience
in Sec. 61.57(d) with respect to the six calendar month timeframe. The
FAA believes that using language from Sec. 61.57(d), which pilots are
already familiar with, will better inform pilots on how to remain
current for EFVS operations under Sec. 61.66. Accordingly, under new
Sec. 61.66(e), if a person has failed to meet the EFVS experience
requirements of Sec. 61.66(d) for more than six calendar months--
meaning it has been more than six months since the person was last
current to perform an EFVS operation, that person may reestablish EFVS
currency only by satisfactorily completing an EFVS refresher course
pursuant to Sec. 61.66(e). The FAA notes that the six calendar month
period described in Sec. 61.66(d) begins when a pilot satisfactorily
completes the ground and flight training and obtains the necessary
endorsements under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ See Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Joshua Wynne from
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Aug.
1, 2008) (explaining that the six calendar month period described in
Sec. 61.57(c) begins when a pilot successfully completes his or her
practical test). ``By passing the practical test, the pilot has
demonstrated his or her instrument proficiency.'' Id. Similarly, the
six calendar month period described in Sec. 61.66(d) begins when a
pilot successfully completes the EFVS training and obtains the
necessary endorsements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 61.66(e) contains a substantive change from what was
proposed in that it provides a six-month grace period for pilots who
have failed to maintain the EFVS recent flight experience requirements
of Sec. 61.66(d). The proposed regulatory text would have required a
pilot to receive an EFVS proficiency check if he or she had not
performed and logged the tasks specified in Sec. 61.66(d) within the 6
calendar months preceding the month of the flight. Under new Sec.
61.66(e), however, a pilot may fail to maintain EFVS currency for up to
6 calendar months without having to obtain refresher training. As with
instrument recent flight experience, a pilot has an additional 6
calendar months to complete the recent EFVS flight experience tasks
specified in Sec. 61.66(d) without having to take an EFVS refresher
course to reestablish his or her EFVS privileges.\45\ In other words, a
pilot has six months from the date that he or she was last current to
conduct EFVS operations to perform the EFVS

[[Page 90150]]

recent flight experience required by Sec. 61.66(d), which may be
accomplished in any weather conditions.\46\ If a pilot fails to
maintain EFVS currency for more than 6 calendar months, however, that
pilot may not manipulate the controls or act as PIC of an aircraft
during an EFVS operation until he or she completes an EFVS refresher
course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School
Certification; Technical Amendment,'' 76 FR 78141, 78142 (Dec. 16,
2011) (``[A] pilot who has failed to maintain instrument currency
for more than six calendar months may not serve as pilot in command
under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed
for visual flight rules (VFR) until completing an instrument
proficiency check. A pilot whose instrument currency has been lapsed
for less than six months may continue to reestablish instrument
currency by performing the tasks and maneuvers required in [Sec.
61.57(c)].'')
\46\ During this six-month grace period, a person may not act as
PIC of an EFVS operation but may manipulate the controls under the
supervision of a PIC properly qualified and current for the purpose
of reestablishing currency. See Legal Interpretation, Letter to
Joseph P. Carr from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (Nov. 7, 1984) (discussing the second six-month period
as it pertains to a pilot regaining his or her instrument currency
and noting that, during this second six-month period, a pilot is
prohibited from acting as PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA never intended the requirements of Sec. 61.66(d) to
replace the instrument experience requirements of Sec. 61.57(c). In
fact, the instrument experience requirements specified in Sec.
61.57(c) lay the foundation for conducting safe EFVS operations by
ensuring pilots are proficient in conducting instrument approach
procedures. The FAA structured Sec. 61.66(d) to enable pilots to
satisfy both the instrument experience requirements and the EFVS
operating experience requirements during the same flight or series of
flights. For example, a person performing an EFVS operation on an
instrument approach under IMC may be able to log that instrument
approach under Sec. 61.57(c) provided he or she is operating the
aircraft solely by reference to the instruments. Under certain
conditions, the pilot may have to remove the EFVS sensor image for a
portion of the approach in order to operate the aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments. In weather conditions that exceed the
sensor's capabilities, such as clouds, dense fog, or heavy rain, the
pilot may not have to remove the EFVS sensor image if it provides no
visual advantage over that of natural vision. However, a person
performing an instrument approach using EFVS under VMC would not be
able to log that approach under Sec. 61.57(c), unless that person were
using a HUD-compatible view limiting device, which enabled the person
to perform the approach solely by reference to the instruments. A
person would be required to comply with the safety pilot requirements
in Sec. 91.109(c) if that person performs an instrument approach with
an EFVS in simulated weather conditions using a view limiting device.
3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience
Boeing commented that proposed Sec. 61.57(h)(1) and (h)(2)(i)
should specify that persons should obtain recent flight experience and
proficiency checks using the same type of EFVS and in the same category
and type of aircraft, if appropriate. Boeing stated that
characteristics and controls may be different among different EFVS
installations, and that there may be differences in the sensor position
and out-the-window view among different airplanes of the same category,
such as an ERJ-170 and a Boeing B747.
While it is unclear whether Boeing is referring to category, class,
and type as defined in Sec. 1.1, the FAA has decided against requiring
persons to obtain recent flight experience using the same type of EFVS
in the same category, class, and type of aircraft. It believes that
imposing such requirements would be unreasonable. The FAA has decided,
however, to require persons to obtain recent flight experience using an
EFVS in the same category of aircraft because the characteristics and
controls of different categories of aircraft, such as rotorcraft and
airplane, may be significantly different. From a practical perspective,
operators train pilots on the specific equipment they will fly in
accordance with their approved training programs. The FAA has decided
to establish minimum standards in Sec. 61.66(d) and (e), which apply
to operators who may be operating a broad range of aircraft and EFVS
equipment. The FAA recommends, however, that persons obtain recent
flight experience using EFVS-equipped aircraft in which the pilot
expects to conduct operations. The FAA also recommends that operators
address training and proficiency for each specific combination of EFVS
and aircraft model in their approved training programs. FSB reports
also provide recommendations for training, checking, currency, recent
flight experience, and special emphasis areas.
Boeing also asked the FAA for clarification about whether contact
and visual approaches under IFR can satisfy the requirement for recent
flight experience using EFVS. The FAA notes that although persons may
conduct contact approaches and visual approaches under instrument
flight rules, these approaches are not instrument approach procedures,
as defined in Sec. 1.1. Therefore, persons cannot use these approaches
to meet the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of Sec.
61.66(d).
4. Persons Authorized To Conduct EFVS Refresher Training
Section 61.66(e)(2) lists the persons authorized to conduct EFVS
refresher training. This list differs from the proposed list of persons
authorized to conduct EFVS proficiency checks in Sec. 61.57(i) based
on comments from Boeing and based on the FAA's own review of the
proposal. More specifically, the FAA is using the term ``authorized
training provider'' in paragraph (e)(2) rather than the proposed term
``authorized instructor'' as a result of Boeing's comment, and the FAA
is not adopting proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(5).
Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an EFVS refresher course to be
conducted by an authorized training provider who meets the training and
recent flight experience requirements in Sec. 61.66. This requirement
differs from what was proposed in Sec. 61.57(i)(4), which would have
allowed authorized instructors to perform EFVS proficiency checks.\47\
The FAA's description of authorized instructor in proposed Sec.
61.57(i)(4) was confusing as evident from Boeing's comment. Boeing
commented that the FAA uses different descriptions for instructors who
provide initial training under proposed Sec. 61.31(l) and those who
provide proficiency checks under proposed Sec. 61.57(i). It
recommended that the FAA revise proposed Sec. 61.57(i) to make it
parallel proposed Sec. 61.31(l), which uses the term ``authorized
instructor'' to describe those who are qualified to provide initial
training. As previously discussed, the FAA is using the term
``authorized training provider,'' rather than the proposed term
``authorized instructor,'' in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) to clarify that
all EFVS training must be accomplished in accordance with an FAA
approved training program under 14 CFR parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121,
125, 135, 141, or 142. The FAA agrees with Boeing that the FAA should
use the same description for instructors who provide initial training
under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) and for instructors who provide EFVS
refresher training under Sec. 61.66(e). Accordingly, the FAA is using
the term ``authorized training provider'' in Sec. 61.66(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ As explained above, the proposed EFVS proficiency check is
now called EFVS refresher training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an authorized training provider to
meet the training requirements of Sec. 61.66 and, if conducting EFVS
operations in an aircraft during the course of refresher training, the
recent flight experience

[[Page 90151]]

requirements of Sec. 61.66.\48\ This requirement is consistent with
the NPRM because proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(4) would have required the
authorized instructor to meet the training requirements for EFVS
operations specified in proposed Sec. 61.31(l) and, if conducting EFVS
operations in an aircraft, meet the recent flight experience
requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ An EFVS operation is defined as an operation in which
visibility conditions require the use of EFVS. If an authorized
training provider will be conducting an EFVS operation in an
aircraft during the course of EFVS refresher training, that
authorized training provider must be EFVS current in accordance with
Sec. 61.66(d) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person may receive an EFVS refresher course from an authorized
training provider under 14 CFR parts 141 or 142.\49\ Therefore, Sec.
61.66(e)(2) encompasses instructors under parts 141 and 142.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Section 61.66(e) does not apply to operators under parts 91
subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 because Sec. 61.66(h)(3) excepts these
operators from the recent flight experience requirements of Sec.
61.66(d).
\50\ Section 61.66(e) also enables a person to receive an EFVS
refresher course from an authorized training provider under part 61.
The FAA is in the process of developing guidance to approve training
programs conducted under part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA finds it unnecessary to adopt proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(1),
(i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(5).
The FAA is not adopting proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(1), which would
have allowed FAA inspectors or designated examiners to conduct EFVS
proficiency checks, because a person cannot obtain EFVS refresher
training from an FAA inspector or designated examiner.
The FAA is not adopting proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(2), which would
have allowed persons who are authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to
perform EFVS proficiency checks to conduct EFVS proficiency checks
under Sec. 61.66(e), previously proposed as Sec. 61.57(i), provided
the person being administered the check was also a member of the U.S.
Armed Forces. Instead, the FAA has decided to create a new paragraph,
Sec. 61.66(f), which solely addresses U.S. military pilots and former
U.S. military pilots and which clarifies that EFVS proficiency checks
administered in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight
experience requirements in Sec. 61.66(d). This paragraph is discussed
in more detail below.
The FAA is not adopting proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(3), which would
have permitted company check pilots who are authorized to perform EFVS
proficiency checks under parts 121, 125, or 135, or subpart K of part
91, to administer EFVS proficiency checks to pilots who are employed by
the operator or fractional ownership program manager. The FAA finds it
impractical to include company check pilots in the list of persons
authorized to administer EFVS refresher training. The FAA also finds it
unnecessary to include persons authorized to administer EFVS training
under parts 121, 125, 135, or part 91 subpart K in the list of persons
authorized to administer EFVS refresher training because, as explained
in section III.E.8.c.of this preamble, Sec. 61.66(h)(3) excepts parts
121, 125 (including part 125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart K
pilots from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of Sec.
61.66(d). Rather than meeting recent flight experience requirements of
Sec. 61.66(d), or reestablishing EFVS currency under Sec. 61.66(e),
pilots conducting EFVS operations for part 91 subpart K, part 121, part
125, and part 135 operators will be checked on EFVS tasks and maneuvers
under their respective parts.
Boeing commented that proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(3) should have
included contract pilots of an operator or fractional ownership program
manager because some operators use contract pilots and instructors for
training. While the FAA agrees with Boeing's comment, the FAA's
decision to no longer adopt proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(3) obviates
addressing Boeing's concern.
The FAA is not adopting proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(5), which would
have permitted persons to perform EFVS proficiency checks if they were
approved by the FAA to perform EFVS proficiency checks, as unnecessary
because Sec. 61.66(e)(2) already allows persons to provide EFVS
refresher training if they are authorized by the Administrator to do
so.
5. Revisions to Sec. 61.57
The FAA is revising certain terms and concepts in Sec. 61.57. The
FAA is revising Sec. 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3) to correct drafting errors
that occurred in a previous rulemaking. A drafting error occurred in
paragraph (e)(2), which stated ``when the pilot is engaged in a flight
operation under parts 91 and 121 for that certificate holder.'' A
drafting error also occurred in paragraph (e)(3), which said ``when the
pilot is engaged in a flight operation under parts 91 and 135 for that
certificate holder.'' The FAA is revising ``and'' to ``or'' to state
``parts 91 or 121'' and ``parts 91 or 135,'' respectively.
The FAA is also revising Sec. 61.57(e)(2) to remove a reference to
Sec. 121.435, which is currently a reserved section and has contained
no requirements since March 12, 2014.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers, 78 FR 67841 (Nov. 12, 2013). Boeing commented that
Sec. 121.437 no longer exists and that the FAA should replace the
regulatory reference with Sec. Sec. 121.435 or 121.436. The FAA
agrees with Boeing and is replacing the regulatory reference with
Sec. 121.436. A rulemaking action entitled ``Pilot Certification
and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations'' (78 FR
42374) removed Sec. 121.437 from the regulations on July 15, 2013,
and added new Sec. Sec. 121.435 and 121.436. Section 121.435
contained the existing certificate requirements for part 121 pilots
that were in effect until July 31, 2013. After that date, the
requirements of Sec. 121.436 began to apply. The FAA notes that
Sec. 121.435 is currently reserved. Therefore, the correct
regulatory reference is Sec. 121.436. The EFVS NPRM did not reflect
these changes because it was published prior to the July 15, 2013
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Military Pilots and Former Military Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces
(Sec. 61.66(f))
The FAA is creating a new paragraph, Sec. 61.66(f), which solely
addresses military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed
Forces. This new paragraph clarifies the regulations applicable to
these pilots.
Under Sec. 61.66(f), a military pilot or former military pilot in
the U.S. Armed Forces is excepted from the ground and flight training
requirements in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) if he or she can document
satisfactory completion of ground and flight training in EFVS
operations by the U.S. Armed Forces. This requirement differs from the
NPRM, where the FAA proposed to permit EFVS proficiency checks
administered in the U.S. Armed Forces in lieu of the EFVS ground and
flight training requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b). A pilot obtains
a proficiency check in the U.S. Armed Forces after receiving the
required ground and flight training. Therefore, the FAA has decided to
accept documentation of EFVS ground and flight training by the U.S.
Armed Forces, rather than an EFVS proficiency check, in lieu of the
ground and flight training requirements in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b).
Accordingly, the training requirements in (a) and (b) do not apply to a
military or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that
person can document satisfactory completion of ground and flight
training in EFVS operations by the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA believes
this change provides clarity and consistency for military pilots and
former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Under Sec. 61.66(f)(3), a military pilot or former military pilot
in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience
requirements in paragraph (d) if he or she documents satisfactory
completion of an EFVS proficiency

[[Page 90152]]

check in the U.S. Armed Forces within 6 calendar months preceding the
month of the flight. The check must be conducted by a person authorized
by the U.S. Armed Forces to administer the check and the person
receiving the check must have been a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at
the time the check was administered. This requirement stems from
proposed Sec. 61.57(i)(2), which would have permitted EFVS proficiency
checks received in the U.S. Armed Forces as a means of satisfying the
recent flight experience requirements of Sec. 61.66(d). Proposed Sec.
61.57(i)(2) was confusing, however, because a pilot operating under
part 61 would not have the option of going to a person authorized by
the U.S. Armed Forces to perform EFVS proficiency checks, and a
military pilot receiving an EFVS proficiency check in the U.S. Armed
Forces would be receiving the check for military purposes--not for the
purpose of satisfying the EFVS recent flight experience requirements of
Sec. 61.66(d). The FAA is therefore adopting new Sec. 61.66(f)(3) to
clarify that EFVS proficiency checks administered in the U.S. Armed
Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements in Sec.
61.66(d).
7. Use of Full Flight Simulators (Sec. 61.66(g))
Section 61.66(g) states that a person may use a level C or higher
full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS to meet the flight
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
of Sec. 61.66. Section 61.66(g) is consistent with the NPRM, where
proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(5), Sec. 61.57(h)(2), and Sec. 61.57(i) would
have permitted the use of FFS to meet the flight training, recent
flight experience, and proficiency check requirements of proposed Sec.
61.31 and Sec. 61.57. The FAA has decided to consolidate these
proposed requirements into one section for clarity. Accordingly, Sec.
61.66(g) now contains the FFS requirements for meeting the flight
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
of Sec. 61.66.
The FAA is using the term ``full flight simulator'' in Sec.
61.66(g), rather than ``simulator'' as proposed, because the term
``simulator'' in Sec. 1.1 has been replaced with the term full flight
simulator (FFS). Additionally, Sec. 61.66(g) clarifies that the FFS
must be evaluated and qualified by the National Simulator Program for
EFVS operations, be qualified and maintained in accordance with part
60, or be a previously qualified device in accordance with Sec. 60.17,
and be approved by the FAA for the tasks and maneuvers that will be
performed in the FFS.
If a pilot is using a level C or higher FFS to meet the flight
training requirements of Sec. 61.66, the FFS must be equipped with a
daylight visual display, as proposed in Sec. 61.31(l)(5), because
Sec. 61.66(b)(2) requires certain flight training tasks to be
conducted under both day and night conditions.\52\ However, the FAA is
not adopting the proposed requirement that a level C or higher FFS be
equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet the EFVS
recent flight experience requirements because Sec. 61.66(d) authorizes
a pilot to complete the recent flight experience in either day or night
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Part 60 requires level C and level D simulators to have
daylight visual scenes. See Part 60, Table A1A Minimum Simulator
Requirements. However, before the FAA adopted part 60 on May 9,
2008, the FAA required only level D simulators to have daylight
visual scenes. Section 61.66(g)(1) permits persons to use previously
qualified devices in accordance with Sec. 60.17. Thus, Sec.
61.66(g)(3) expressly requires a level C or higher FFS to be
equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet the
flight training requirements of Sec. 61.66(b). This equipment
requirement is necessary because some level C simulators qualified
prior to the establishment of part 60 were not required to have
daylight visual scenes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Exceptions (Sec. 61.66(h))
The FAA is adopting several exceptions to the flight training,
recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements in Sec.
61.66.
a. Manipulating the Controls (Sec. 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii)
Under Sec. 61.66(b), no person may manipulate the controls of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation as specified in Sec. 91.176(a) or
(b) unless that person has received and logged flight training for the
EFVS operation under a training program approved by the Administrator
and obtained a logbook or training record endorsement from an
authorized training provider certifying that the person has
satisfactorily completed the flight training. The FAA now recognizes
that, without an exception, Sec. 61.66(b) would prohibit a person from
manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation while
he or she was receiving flight training in EFVS operations under an FAA
approved training program. Immediately after the pilot received the
required flight training and endorsement, however, he or she would be
authorized to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during EFVS
operations performed on his or her own.
A pilot should be permitted to manipulate the controls of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation when that pilot is receiving flight
training on EFVS operations under an FAA approved training program,
provided the training provider's instructor is qualified under Sec.
61.66 to perform the EFVS operation in the category of aircraft in
which the training is being conducted. Accordingly, the FAA is adding
new Sec. 61.66(h)(1)(i) to allow manipulation of the controls during
flight training.
The FAA also now recognizes that, without an exception, Sec.
61.66(d) would prohibit a person from manipulating the controls of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation conducted in the course of satisfying
the recent flight experience requirements specified in paragraph (d).
Similarly, without an exception, Sec. 61.66(d) and (e) would prohibit
a person from manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS
operation conducted during an refresher course. Accordingly, the FAA is
adding exceptions in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iii) to permit a
person to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS
operation conducted in the course of satisfying the recent flight
experience requirements and in the course of completing EFVS refresher
training.
If a person whose currency had lapsed were to manipulate the
controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation performed in the
course of satisfying the recent flight experience requirements, another
individual would have to serve as PIC of the aircraft during that EFVS
operation because a person may not act as PIC during an EFVS operation
unless he or she meets the recent flight experience requirements
specified in paragraph (d).\53\ The individual serving as PIC during
the EFVS operation must be qualified under Sec. 61.66 to perform the
EFVS operation in the category of aircraft in which the flight is being
conducted. Similarly, if a person were to manipulate the controls of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation performed in the course of completing
an EFVS refresher course, the person administering the training would
have to be qualified under Sec. 61.66 to perform the EFVS operation in
the category of aircraft in which the training was being conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ The FAA notes that, under Sec. 61.66(d), recent flight
experience may be accomplished in any weather conditions not just
conditions that require the use of an EFVS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Exception to Ground and Flight Training (Sec. 61.66(h)(2))
The FAA is adding new Sec. 61.66(h)(2) to provide personnel
involved in certain research and development, EFVS certification, and
operational suitability

[[Page 90153]]

determination activities an alternate means of meeting the training
requirements of Sec. 61.66(a) and (b). The FAA finds the addition is
necessary because personnel involved in such activities, all of which
may be conducted in aircraft issued an experimental certificate under
Sec. 21.191, may be otherwise unable to obtain training under an FAA-
approved training program, as required by Sec. 61.66(a) and (b).\54\
For example, FAA personnel involved in EFVS certification and
operational suitability determination activities receive training
through other processes that are provided for and specified in internal
FAA Orders. These processes may differ from those specified in Sec.
61.66(a) and (b), but are approved and used by the FAA. Another example
is an applicant who seeks to certify an EFVS based on new sensor
technology for which an FAA-approved training course does not yet exist
and an authorized instructor who can give the training is not yet
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ An FAA-approved training program means training acquired
under part 141 or part 142, an FAA-approved training program under
part 125 or part 91 subpart K, or an FAA-approved air carrier
training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, new Sec. 61.66(h)(2) provides that the requirements
specified in Sec. 61.66(a) and (b) do not apply if a person is
conducting a flight or series of flights in an aircraft issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations provided the person
has knowledge of the subjects specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section and has experience with the tasks specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted. This
provides some flexibility for tasks that might be specified in Sec.
61.66(b)(2) but are not applicable to a particular research and
development or show-compliance project.
In order to qualify under the exception in Sec. 61.66(h)(2), an
applicant must submit evidence to the FAA showing that he or she
complies with Sec. 61.66(h)(2), along with his or her program letter
and application for an experimental certificate. The guidance material
will address circumstances in which it is appropriate for an applicant
to use this alternate means of meeting the additional training required
for EFVS operations under Sec. 61.66(a) and (b), the process an
applicant may follow, and other related regulatory requirements.
c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience Requirements (Sec.
61.66(h)(3))
As noted in the NPRM, parts 121, 125, 135, and 91 subpart K
operators currently authorized to conduct EFVS operations must train,
check, and qualify their pilots on EFVS in accordance with their OpSpec
or MSpec. Existing regulations in parts 121, 135, and 91 subpart K
require operators to provide training that ensures each crewmember is
qualified on new equipment, facilities, procedures, and techniques,
including modifications to aircraft.\55\ Part 125 does not contain
training requirements for pilots; \56\ however, at a minimum, any
person serving as a required flightcrew member for a part 125 operator
must meet the EFVS training requirements in Sec. 61.66.\57\ The
regulatory requirements to train crewmembers on EFVS are transparent
within the relevant operating rules in 14 CFR. However, the requirement
to be qualified for EFVS operations by one of the certificate holder's
check airmen is not as clearly set forth in part 121, 125, 135, or 91
subpart K. The FAA is therefore revising Sec. Sec. 91.1065, 125.287,
135.293, and appendix F to part 121 \58\ to provide greater clarity on
the checking requirements for EFVS operations. Operators authorized to
conduct EFVS operations will incorporate EFVS into existing recurrent
training and checking to ensure pilots remain proficient on EFVS tasks
and maneuvers. Because pilots will be checked on EFVS tasks and
maneuvers under part 91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135,
the FAA is adding Sec. 61.66(h)(3), which excepts parts 121, 125
(including part 125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart K pilots from
the EFVS recent flight experience requirements in Sec. 61.66(d).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ 14 CFR 91.1081(e), 121.415(g), and 135.329(e).
\56\ ``Under the part 125 regulatory design, reliance is placed
upon tests and checks to ensure airman are proficient. These tests
and checks are adequate to ensure an acceptable level of safety in
part 125.'' 45 FR 67214 (October 9, 1980).
\57\ Section 61.66 sets forth the specific contents for EFVS
training. An EFVS training program--whether conducted by a part 121
air carrier, a part 135 operator, a part 142 training center, or a
part 141 pilot school--must at a minimum include the content set
forth in Sec. 61.66(a) through (c).
\58\ Because Sec. 61.66(g) authorizes a pilot to use a level C
or higher full flight simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS to meet
the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher
training requirements of Sec. 61.66, the FAA is also amending
appendix H to part 121 to ensure that the EFVS proficiency check
requirements added to appendix F will be completed in a level C or
level D FFS.
\59\ Because Sec. 61.66(h)(3) excepts part 91 subpart K, part
121, part 125, and part 135 operators from the EFVS recent flight
experience requirements in Sec. 61.66(d), these operators will
never lapse under Sec. 61.66(d), which means these operators will
never have to reestablish EFVS currency under Sec. 61.66(e). Thus,
the practical effect of Sec. 61.66(h)(3) is that part 91 subpart K,
part 121, part 125, and part 135 operators are also excepted from
the EFVS refresher course requirements in Sec. 61.66(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exception in Sec. 61.66(h)(3) is consistent with the
instrument recency provisions, namely Sec. 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3),
which except part 121 and 135 pilots from the instrument recent flight
experience specified in Sec. 61.57(c).\60\ Section 61.66(h)(3) also
excepts part 91 subpart K and part 125 operators (including part 125
LODA holders) from the recent flight experience requirements in Sec.
61.66(d) because, as a practical matter, part 91 subpart K and part 125
operators (including part 125 LODA holders) accomplish instrument
proficiency checks under Sec. Sec. 91.1069 and 125.291 rather than
completing the instrument recency tasks specified in Sec. 61.57(c).
Section 61.66(d) is modeled after the instrument recent flight
experience requirements in Sec. 61.57. To be consistent with the
practical application of Sec. Sec. 61.57, 91.1069 and 125.291, and to
ensure that the FAA does not impose an additional burden on part 91
subpart K and part 125 operations, the FAA is excepting them from Sec.
61.66(d). Instead, part 91 subpart K and part 125 operators (including
part 125 LODA holders) will be treated similar to part 121 and part 135
operators in terms of EFVS checking requirements, as explained above,
which is consistent with the way the FAA has been treating them in EFVS
authorizations since 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Section Sec. 61.66(h)(3)(i) excepts part 121 and 135
operators from the EFVS recent flight experience requirements just
as Sec. 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3) except part 121 and 135 operators
from the instrument recent flight experience requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exception in Sec. 61.66(h)(3) states that the recent flight
experience requirements of Sec. 61.66(d) do not apply to a pilot
employed by: A part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct
operations under part 121, 125, or 135; a part 125 LODA holder
authorized to conduct operations under part 125; or a fractional
ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part
91 subpart K, when the pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for that
certificate holder, LODA holder, or program manager under parts 91,
121, 125, or 135, as applicable, provided the pilot is conducting the
operation in accordance with the certificate holder's OpSpec, with the
LODA holder's LOA, or with the program manager's MSpec for EFVS
operations.
As with the recency exceptions in Sec. 61.57, the exception from
EFVS recency requirements set forth in Sec. 61.66(h)(3) applies only
when a pilot is conducting an EFVS operation for a

[[Page 90154]]

part 119 certificate holder under part 91, 121, 125, or 135, for a LODA
holder under part 125, or for a fractional ownership program manager
under part 91 subpart K. The pilot would be required to comply with
Sec. 61.66(d) if he or she were to conduct an EFVS operation outside
of the part 119 certificate holder's, the LODA holder's, or the part 91
subpart K program manager's operations. If a pilot conducting EFVS
operations for either a part 119 certificate holder, a LODA holder, or
a program manager has not satisfied the recent flight experience
requirements specified in Sec. 61.66(d) within six calendar months
preceding the month of his or her flight, that pilot would still be
deemed EFVS current (outside of the part 119 certificate holder's, the
LODA holder's, or the program manager's operations) if he or she had
accomplished a check on EFVS operations under part 91 subpart K, 121,
125, or 135 by an individual described in paragraph (e)(iii), (iv), or
(v), as appropriate, provided it were obtained within six calendar
months preceding the month of the flight.
d. Grandfather Clause (Sec. 61.66(h)(4))
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(7)(ii), which would
have excepted pilots from the new EFVS ground and flight training
requirements if they satisfactorily completed a training program,
proficiency check, or other course of instruction applicable to EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE that is acceptable to the
Administrator prior to March 13, 2019. Proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(7) was
intended to decrease the regulatory burden on pilots who have been
safely conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under
Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) and to provide pilot schools and training
centers with adequate time to develop training programs that meet the
proposed training requirements.
After further consideration, the FAA finds that proposed Sec.
61.31(l)(7)(ii) would not have sufficiently reduced the regulatory
burden on operators who have been conducting EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) as it focused only on
pilot qualification requirements. Because this final rule should not
cause any disruption to operators or pilots who have been conducting
EFVS operations under Sec. 91.175(l) and (m), the FAA is restructuring
the proposed regulations to provide an adequate transition period for
operators and pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the
TDZE. Accordingly, Sec. 91.175(n) requires persons conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE to comply with either Sec.
91.175(l) and (m) or Sec. 91.176(b) until March 13, 2018.\61\
Beginning on March 13, 2018, persons conducting EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE must comply with Sec. 91.176(b) and thus the
training, recent flight experience and refresher training requirements
set forth in Sec. 61.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Because persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the TDZE may comply with Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) prior to
March 13, 2018, the appropriate sections of 14 CFR, including
Sec. Sec. 91.175, 91.1039, 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225,
will reference both Sec. Sec. 91.175(l) and 91.176. After March 13,
2018, however, Sec. 91.175(l) and (m) will be removed from 14 CFR
along with any references to these paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is adding an exception to Sec. 61.66(h)(5) to clarify
that, notwithstanding Sec. 91.175(l)(5), persons conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.175(l) and (m)
prior to March 13, 2018, are not required to comply with the new
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
in Sec. 61.66. Instead, during the transition period, persons may
conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE just as they have
been under Sec. 91.175(l) and (m).\62\ The FAA believes the new
transition period is consistent with the discussion in the NPRM in that
it decreases the regulatory burden on persons already conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and it provides pilot schools and
training centers with adequate time to develop training programs that
meet the proposed training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Although operators conducting EFVS operations under Sec.
91.175(l) and (m) were not required to receive EFVS training, the
majority of them would have received EFVS training prior to
conducting EFVS operations. As explained in the NPRM, EFVS
manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators have all
recognized the need for pilots to receive training in the use of
EFVS prior to conducting EFVS operations. In fact, non-commercial
operators generally obtained EFVS training for their pilots at 142
training centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, the FAA is adopting Sec. 61.66(h)(4), which excepts
persons from the ground and flight training requirements in Sec.
61.66(a) and (b) if they are conducting EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176(b) and can document that prior to March 13, 2018, they have
satisfactorily completed ground and flight training on EFVS operations
to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA notes, however, that in order to
conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, these persons must
still complete the supplemental EFVS training pursuant to Sec.
61.66(c).
Section 61.66(h)(4) is consistent with the intent of proposed Sec.
61.31(l)(7)(ii), which was to decrease the regulatory burden on pilots
already conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE by
providing them with a reasonable means of demonstrating compliance with
the proposed ground and flight training requirements. The FAA
restructured proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(7)(ii), however, to clarify what
is required of pilots who wish to be excepted from the new EFVS
training requirements based on their previous EFVS experience.
Accordingly, new Sec. 61.66(h)(4) clarifies that pilots must be able
to document that prior to March 13, 2018, they have satisfactorily
completed ground and flight training on EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the TDZE.\63\ The FAA acknowledges the reduction in time from 24
calendar months after the effective date of the final rule to 12 months
after the effective date of the final rule. The FAA reduced the cutoff
date to 12 months after the effective date of the final rule to
coincide with the transition period provided to operators in Sec.
91.175(n). Reducing the duration of time to 12 calendar months should
not impact operators as the FAA expects operators to comply with Sec.
91.176(b) and Sec. 61.66 as soon as practicable. Likewise, pilots who
have received training in EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE
during the transition period will not be required to duplicate that
training--as permitted under Sec. 61.66(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ Section 61.66(h)(4) does not require the ground and flight
training on EFVS operations to have been obtained under an FAA
approved training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, while proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(7) was intended to
provide training centers and pilot schools sufficient time to either
revise or develop training programs that complied with the new training
requirements; it would not have established a definitive compliance
date for such persons. The FAA is therefore adopting Sec. 91.176(b)(4)
to clarify that persons conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above
the TDZE must comply with the new requirements in Sec. 91.176(b) and
Sec. 61.66 beginning on March 13, 2018. However, the FAA encourages
persons to comply with the new requirements in Sec. 91.176(b) and
Sec. 61.66 as soon as practicable.

[[Page 90155]]

F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a Flight Using EFVS-Equipped
Aircraft When the Reported or Forecast Visibility at the Destination
Airport Is Below Authorized Minimums (Sec. Sec. 121.613, 125.361,
135.219) and Initiating or Continuing an Approach Using EFVS-Equipped
Aircraft When the Destination Airport Visibility Is Below Authorized
Minimums (Sec. Sec. 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, 135.225)

The FAA proposed to amend the dispatch, flight release, and takeoff
regulations found in Sec. Sec. 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219 to permit
operators authorized to conduct EFVS operations to dispatch, release,
or takeoff under IFR when weather reports or forecasts indicate that
weather conditions will be below the minimums authorized for the
approaches to be flown at the destination airport. The FAA is no longer
amending Sec. Sec. 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219, as proposed, because
the amendments are unnecessary as evidenced by a legal interpretation
that was issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Regulations
Division on April 21, 2009.\64\ The legal interpretation explains that
authorized minimums are identified in various documents pertaining to
the conduct of the flight, such as standard instrument approach
procedures and operations specifications. Weather conditions at an
airport must be at or above these authorized minimums at an aircraft's
estimated time of arrival if the aircraft is to be dispatched or
released under part 121 or 125, or a pilot takes off under IFR or
begins an IFR over-the-top operation under part 135, to that location.
For an EFVS operation, the controlling visibility limitation will be
specified in the operator's OpSpec or LOA authorizing the use of
EFVS.\65\ Because the FAA interprets ``authorized minimums'' in
Sec. Sec. 121.613, 125.361, and 135.219 to include visibility minimums
specified in OpSpecs, an operator authorized to conduct EFVS operations
is already permitted to dispatch, release, or takeoff when weather
reports or forecasts indicate that the weather conditions will be below
the minimums authorized in the standard instrument approach procedure
to be flown at the destination airport, so long as the weather
conditions will be at or above the controlling visibility limitation in
the OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. James B. Hart from
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations
(April 21, 2009); see also FAA Information for Operators (Info)
08050 (Sept. 25, 2008).
\65\ The FAA recognizes that operators authorized to conduct
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.175 do not
have visibility limitations specified in their OpSpecs or LOAs
authorizing the use of EFVS. The FAA will include visibility
limitations in OpSpecs or LOAs authorizing EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE under Sec. 91.176(b).
\66\ While Sec. 135.219 uses the term ``authorized IFR landing
minimums'' rather than ``authorized minimums,'' the FAA interprets
Sec. 135.219 consistently with Sec. Sec. 121.613 and 125.361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA also proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 121.615(a) and 125.363(a)
to permit operators to dispatch or release an EFVS-equipped aircraft
when weather reports or forecasts indicate that the weather conditions
will be below the authorized minimums at the destination airport. The
FAA is no longer amending Sec. Sec. 121.615(a) and 125.363(a), as
proposed, because the amendments are unnecessary as evidenced by two
legal interpretations that were issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel
for the Regulations Division on April 12, 2010 and May 31, 2006.\67\
The legal interpretations explain that under Sec. 121.615(a), an air
carrier may dispatch an extended overwater flight to a destination
airport that is forecasted to be below minimums so long as an alternate
airport is forecasted to be above minimums. The FAA interprets Sec.
125.363(a) consistently with Sec. 121.615(a) because Sec. 125.363(a)
was based on, and contains the same language as, Sec. 121.615(a).\68\
It is therefore unnecessary to amend Sec. Sec. 121.615(a) and
125.363(a) as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Gregory Unterseher
from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations
(April 12, 2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Mark
Anderson from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (May 31, 2006).
\68\ Proposal to Upgrade Regulation of Certain Large General
Aviation Airplanes and Replace Commercial Operator and Air Travel
Club Regulations, 44 FR 66324, 66327 (Nov. 19, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As originally proposed, the FAA is amending Sec. Sec. 121.651,
125.325, 125.381, and 135.225 to permit operators authorized to conduct
EFVS operations to initiate or continue an approach under IFR when
weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate the
weather conditions at the destination airport are below the authorized
minimums for the approach to be flown. The FAA has also decided to
amend Sec. 91.1039(e), which was not originally proposed, to clarify
that an EFVS operation is permitted when the landing weather minimums
are less than those prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction
over the airport. The FAA believes these amendments will enable
operators to take full advantage of the operational capabilities
provided by EFVS to improve access to runways, increase service
reliability, and reduce the costs associated with operational delays,
without compromising safety.
Boeing commented that when the rule becomes effective and operators
obtain the appropriate authorization to conduct EFVS operations, they
will be able to fly approaches to landing and rollout in virtually any
weather. Boeing questioned whether performance data is currently
available that demonstrates there will be a consistent positive outcome
across all operators as a result of this new capability. It suggested
the FAA obtain experience with one or two operators before adopting the
EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout rule for all operators. It
believes it is more appropriate to get performance data for a few
operators using the new capability, before making it available to
everyone.
The FAA disagrees. Operators have been safely conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE for over 12 years. This final
rule is expanding these operations to include EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout and to permit operators using EFVS-equipped
aircraft to dispatch, release a flight, or takeoff under IFR, and to
initiate and continue an approach, when the destination airport weather
is below authorized visibility minimums for the runway of intended
landing. The FAA is implementing new training, recent flight
experience, and proficiency requirements to ensure that pilots are
trained and tested to a standard on EFVS operations and to ensure that
these pilots maintain the knowledge and skills necessary to safely
conduct EFVS operations. Additionally, the FAA intends to provide
operating conditions and limitations in an operator's EFVS
authorization to ensure the safe conduct of all EFVS operations.
Furthermore, the FAA specifically structured the EFVS regulations
to provide flexibility and to enable the FAA to structure an operator's
authorization to conduct new EFVS operations in a way that links
equipage and system performance to specific operational capabilities.
The equipment certification process will ensure the EFVS meets the
equipment requirements and certification criteria for the operation for
which the EFVS is intended. The operational approval process will
validate the operator's ability to safely perform the EFVS
operation.\69\ The operational approval

[[Page 90156]]

process also evaluates and monitors EFVS equipment reliability and
validates the operator's ability to maintain the EFVS equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ AC 90-106A, Section 10, ``Operational Approval Process for
EFVS Operations,'' provides an approval process for operators to
demonstrate their ability to perform EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176. The process consists of five distinct, yet related phases.
The demonstration and inspection phase of the process is the major
validation phase where the FAA observes and evaluates the operator's
demonstration of its ability to perform in accordance with the
procedures, guidelines, and parameters described in the operator's
formal proposal. This phase concludes when the operator provides
sufficient proof to satisfy the FAA's requirements. The
demonstration and inspection phase permits new EFVS capabilities to
be deployed while providing regulatory oversight and verification of
system and crew performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters requested clarification on how the FAA intends
to manage an operator's authorization to dispatch, release, or takeoff
under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the
destination airport weather is below authorized visibility minimums.
Airbus noted that the FAA expects to manage this authorization through
an operator's OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations to ensure that
an increase in the rate of missed approaches does not occur. It
requested clarification on how the FAA will manage this expectation and
what requirements this might place on airborne sensor performance. CMC
Electronics, Inc. (CMC) asked the FAA to clarify how it will require
OEMs to demonstrate EFVS capabilities to support these authorizations.
To illustrate its concerns, CMC noted that RVR reporting does not
directly relate to EFVS performance and stated that a given RVR
measurement can be a result of different types of weather conditions
that look the same in the visible spectrum but may lead to different
performance in currently certified EFVS systems. Rockwell Collins
commented that it assumes visibility limitations will appear in an
operator's OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations as the limitations
do not appear in rule language. Rockwell Collins also asked whether it
is possible to have a higher than RVR 1000 feet visibility limitation
based on a lesser performing sensor, or whether there is the potential
for a sensor to be given multiple approvals based on performance in
different environmental conditions. Thales commented that the FAA
should clearly define minimums for these operations based on EFVS
sensor technology, system performance, and installation criteria to
ensure equality of treatment for all applicants.
The response to these comments is that an applicant who seeks to
certify an EFVS will demonstrate EFVS performance for its aircraft
during the EFVS equipment certification process.\70\ During that
process, the FAA will determine whether an EFVS meets the equipment
requirements and certification criteria for the EFVS operation it is
intended to be used for (i.e., an EFVS operation to 100 feet or an EFVS
operation to touchdown and rollout). EFVS equipment certification
criteria differ depending on the EFVS operation to be conducted.
Initially the FAA plans to authorize EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout to visibilities as low as RVR 1000 feet. The FAA expects to
develop touchdown and rollout authorizations in the future to lower
visibilities as EFVS equipment is developed to support those
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Part 21 contains the certification procedures for products
and parts. Parts 23, 25, 27 and 29 contain the airworthiness
standards for EFVS. AC 20-167A and AC 90-106A contain guidance on
EFVS sensor performance and airworthiness certification appropriate
to the EFVS operation to be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the EFVS equipment certification process, the
operational approval process--which verifies an operator's ability to
safely perform the EFVS operation--includes a demonstration and
inspection phase. During this phase, the FAA evaluates an operator's
processes, procedures, and training as well as the ability of the
operator's maintenance personnel and dispatchers, or persons authorized
to exercise operational control, to support the EFVS operations to be
conducted. This process verifies the operator's ability to conduct EFVS
operations and to determine when it is appropriate to dispatch a
flight, release a flight, or take off under IFR as well as initiate or
continue an approach when the weather at the destination airport is
below authorized minimums. In accordance with Sec. 91.176(a)(4), the
FAA may prescribe additional equipment, operational, and visibility and
visual reference requirements to account for specific equipment
characteristics, operational procedures, or approach characteristics
through an operator's authorization to conduct EFVS operations.
Accordingly, the FAA may specify minimum visibilities in OpSpecs for
part 121, 125, or 135 operators to initiate and continue an approach
using an EFVS-equipped aircraft when the destination airport weather is
below authorized visibility minimums for the approach to be flown.
Therefore, as Rockwell Collins assumed, visibility limitations will
appear in an operator's OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations. In
response to Rockwell Collins' inquiry, it is possible to have a higher
than RVR 1000-feet-visibility limitation depending on the capability of
the EFVS equipment and on the EFVS operation the equipment is certified
to support. Authorizations for future EFVS operations may specify other
requirements under Sec. 91.176(a)(4), depending on the EFVS operation
to be conducted and the ability of the EFVS equipment to support a
given EFVS operation.
The FAA disagrees with Thales that it should mandate specific
minimums by regulation for EFVS operations as this would be contrary to
the FAA's intent. The FAA acknowledges that EFVS performance using
currently certified EFVS equipment can vary by sensor technology and
design, meteorological conditions, and other factors; however, the FAA
may make adjustments to an operator's EFVS authorization. Managing an
authorization in this manner ensures that the FAA is able to maintain
an appropriate level of safety, enables the FAA to effectively respond
to new technology developments, and provides a means to tailor an
authorization to fit an operator's particular EFVS capabilities.
Therefore, although giving a sensor multiple approvals based on
performance in different environmental conditions, as Rockwell Collins
suggested, is impractical, the FAA may adjust an operator's EFVS
authorization in response to certain conditions. For example,
operational experience may indicate that adjustments may have to be
made in response to certain meteorological conditions. Operators who
plan to conduct these operations should establish operating procedures
and training that account for the limitations of the EFVS and weather
conditions that may exceed the sensor's ability to provide the enhanced
flight visibility required to complete the approach and landing.
Eurocopter/American Eurocopter commented that the provisions of
Sec. 121.651(d) that permit a pilot to begin the final approach
segment of an instrument approach procedure other than a Category II or
Category III procedure at an airport when the visibility is less than
the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure should not be
limited to airports that are served by an operative ILS and an
operative PAR. Eurocopter asserted that LPV approaches are becoming
commonplace and are the only approaches with vertical guidance
available at many airfields. The commenter recommended that Sec.
121.651(d) permit the use of WAAS/LPV, particularly with respect to
EFVS operations.
The FAA is not adopting Eurocopter/American Eurocopter's
recommendations because they are

[[Page 90157]]

outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to change
the current requirements of Sec. 121.651(d) with respect to non-EFVS
operations. The FAA notes, however, that Sec. 121.651(e) permits a
pilot to begin the final approach segment of an Area Navigation (RNAV)
(GPS) approach to the published LPV (or other applicable) minimums when
the visibility is reported to be below the visibility prescribed by the
instrument approach procedure when using EFVS as specified in that
paragraph.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation commented that the FAA did not
limit the use of EFVS for landing to ``certain operators.'' However,
the commenter noted that the NPRM would have permitted ``certain
operators'' using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or
takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the
destination airport weather was below authorized visibility minimums
for the runway of intended landing. Gulfstream commented that the FAA's
use of the term ``certain operators'' makes it appear as if dispatch
and takeoff using EFVS is restricted. It further stated that if this
restriction applies to some operators and not others, the rationale for
the distinction should be provided.
The term ``certain operators'' means persons conducting EFVS
operations under part 121, 125, or 135 whose operations are subject to
specific rules governing the dispatch, release, or takeoff of aircraft
under IFR. Prior to this final rule, regulations prohibited these
operators from dispatching, releasing, or initiating a flight under IFR
when the reported or forecast visibility at the destination airport was
below authorized minimums. Regulations also prohibited these operators
from initiating or continuing an approach when the destination airport
visibility was below authorized minimums. The FAA did not intend the
term ``certain operators'' to imply that additional restrictions would
be imposed upon individual operators.
Dassault Aviation noted references made by the FAA to the European
Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) reduction of \1/3\ of the visibility
required to conduct an approach using EFVS in EASA member states.
Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA articulate its position with
respect to this means of calculating visibility minimums for EFVS
operations. The FAA acknowledges that EASA uses a different method to
permit operators to conduct EFVS operations. However, this rulemaking
only addresses EFVS operations that are subject to FAA regulations.
Rockwell Collins asked whether the FAA and EASA will attempt to
harmonize EFVS approved capabilities and requirements in the future. In
its comment, Rockwell Collins referred to differences between FAA and
EASA regulations such as the requirements applicable to beginning an
approach when the reported visibility is less than the visibility
specified in the instrument approach procedure to be flown.
The FAA participates on several international committees that are
tasked with addressing advanced vision system operations. Every attempt
is made to harmonize those operations; however, differences in
underlying operational concepts and existing regulations may preclude
full harmonization of EFVS rules.

G. Revisions to Category II and III General Operating Rules To Permit
the Use of an EFVS (Sec. 91.189)

Section 91.189 contains the general operating rules for Category II
and Category III operations.\71\ As originally proposed, Sec.
91.189(d) now permits a pilot to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision
to identify the visual references required for descent below the
authorized DH on a Category II or III approach. A pilot conducting a
Category II or III approach in accordance with Sec. 91.189(d) must
comply with either the provisions of that paragraph for identifying
required visual references using natural vision or with the provisions
of Sec. 91.176 for identifying required visual references using
EFVS.\72\ Also as originally proposed, Sec. 91.189(e) now permits a
pilot operating an aircraft in a Category II or III approach to
continue the approach below the authorized DA/DH provided the
conditions specified in Sec. 91.176 are met.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Section 91.189(g) states that the provisions of Sec.
91.189 do not apply to Category II or Category III operations
conducted by certificate holders operating under parts 121, 125,
129, or 135, or holders of MSpecs issued in accordance with part 91,
subpart K. Therefore, Sec. 91.189 only pertains to part 91
operators other than those conducting operations under part 91,
subpart K.
\72\ Prior to this final rule, a pilot operating an aircraft on
a Category II or Category III approach that requires the use of a
DA/DH could not continue the approach below the authorized DH unless
he or she had at least one of the visual references listed in Sec.
91.189(d)(2) distinctly visible and identifiable using natural
vision.
\73\ The FAA notes that all of the equipment requirements and
airmen certification requirements for the conduct of Category II and
Category III operations will continue to apply when an EFVS is used
during the conduct of those operations. The FAA also notes that an
operator intending to use an EFVS to descend below DA/DH during the
conduct of an authorized Category II or Category III operation will
be required to revise its Category II or Category Ill manual
specified in Sec. 91.191 to reflect the use of EFVS. A person
seeking to conduct authorized Category II or Category III operations
where the use of EFVS is necessary to conduct those operations will
have to be authorized by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thales commented that the revisions to Sec. 91.189(d) are
confusing when considering how an EFVS might be used during Category
III operations. It stated that the amendments are applicable to
Category II operations because the DH is at 100 feet, but for Category
III operations where the DH is less than 100 feet, Thales believes that
the rule should address this segment of the approach.
The FAA disagrees that the regulation should specifically address
the use of EFVS during Category III approaches. Rather, the FAA is
revising the applicable portions of Sec. 91.189 to align it with Sec.
91.176, which facilitates the possible future use of authorized EFVS
operations during authorized Category II or Category III operations. In
Sec. 91.189(d), the FAA is amending the regulations for part 91
operators (except for part 91, subpart K operators) to permit them to
use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to identify the required visual
references. Under this rule, Sec. 91.189(e) now permits a pilot
operating an aircraft on a Category II or III approach to continue the
approach below the authorized DA/DH provided the conditions specified
in Sec. 91.176 are met. The FAA notes that it authorizes Category II
or Category III operations through an operator's OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA.
Therefore, an operator who wishes to conduct an EFVS operation during
an authorized Category II or Category III operation may only do so in
accordance with an OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA. The FAA is also adding
paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (b)(2)(x) to Sec. 91.176 to clarify the
requirement for an authorization to conduct an EFVS operation during an
authorized Category II or Category III operation. The FAA notes that it
will develop authorizations and guidance to support future EFVS
operations.

H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and Airworthiness Standards for Vision
Systems With Transparent Displays Located in the Pilot's Outside Field
of View (Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773)

Sections 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 specify the
requirements and conditions under which the pilot compartment must
provide an extensive, clear, and undistorted view to the pilot for safe
operation of the aircraft within its operating limitations.

[[Page 90158]]

Additionally, the regulations require that the pilot compartment be
free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the normal
duties of the minimum flightcrew.
When these rules were originally issued, the FAA did not anticipate
the development of vision systems with transparent displays that could
significantly enhance, or even substitute for, a pilot's natural
vision. Vision systems are used to display an image of the external
scene to the flightcrew. For over a decade, the FAA has certified
vision systems for transport category aircraft that have head up
displays. However, prior to this final rule, the airworthiness
standards governing the pilot compartment view set forth in Sec.
25.773 were inadequate to address the novel or unusual design features
of these systems. Therefore, the FAA issued special conditions under
Sec. 21.16 to provide airworthiness standards, which were used to
enable the installation of vision systems that met a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the regulations. Special conditions
were issued to each applicant, because special conditions only apply to
individual certification projects. However, for consistency, the FAA
attempted to standardize these special conditions to the maximum extent
possible. With over fourteen years of experience, the process of
developing special conditions for vision systems has become routine,
and operational experience has shown that the certification
requirements set forth in the special conditions have resulted in safe
and effective vision system operations.
Based on the experience gained by the FAA in developing special
conditions, the FAA is establishing airworthiness standards for vision
systems with transparent displays located in the pilot's outside view
for airplanes and rotorcraft. This will provide industry with known
requirements for the certification of these systems and eliminate the
costs resulting from the process of issuing special conditions.
Accordingly, the FAA is amending Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and
29.773 to include the general requirements that were previously
contained in special conditions. In recognition of the rapid
development of vision system technology, these amendments permit the
certification of a wide range of current and future vision systems,
such as an EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS, and they address display methods
other than a HUD, such as head mounted displays or other types of head
up presentations.
1. Vision Systems and Display Methods Addressed by Sec. Sec. 23.773,
25.773, 27.773, and 29.773
Under Sec. Sec. 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and
29.773(c)(2), when the vision system displays imagery and any symbology
referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including
attitude symbology, FPV, and FPARC, that imagery and symbology must be
aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene. This requirement marks
a slight change from the NPRM where the proposed rule would have
required the vision system to continuously display the imagery,
attitude symbology, FPV, FPARC, and other cues, which are referenced to
the imagery and external scene topography.
Thales commented that the proposed airworthiness standards would
have required the FPARC to be permanently displayed along with the EFVS
imagery. Thales stated that there are phases of flight where this
symbology may not be necessary. It suggested the FAA require, ``flight
path angle reference cue when necessary.'' Airbus submitted a similar
comment, stating that Sec. 25.773(e)(2) should provide for presenting
a reduced set of aircraft flight information and flight symbology on
the HUD or other equivalent display. It stated that the declutter mode
should be allowed to preserve, or not interfere with, the EFVS image
and outside view. Airbus's comment also applied to Sec. 23.773(c)(2)
and could have necessitated revisions to Sec. 91.175(m) as well.
Airbus proposed that Sec. 25.773(e)(2) should permit the display of
some cues to be removed depending on the flown phase.
The FAA agrees that the airworthiness standards should not require
the continuous display of specific symbology, including the FPARC, in
all phases of flight. The FAA's intent was not to require the display
of any EFVS symbology or imagery in the airworthiness rules as these
rules also address transparent display surfaces for systems other than
EFVS. Instead, the FAA intended to identify those visually displayed
elements, such as imagery and earth-referenced symbology, which need to
be conformal--that is, scaled to and aligned with the outside view.
Accordingly, the regulations do not require the continuous display of
specific symbology.
However, the FAA does not agree that it should revise the operating
requirements in Sec. 91.175(m), which have been moved to Sec. 91.176.
The operating rules require specific information to be displayed to the
pilot. The FAA notes, however, that EFVS typically have declutter modes
available to the pilot that provide a reduced set of information when
it is necessary for the safe conduct of the flight.
Eurocopter and American Eurocopter commented that the airworthiness
certification rules should be more specific about which types of vision
systems they address. It stated that the regulations were specific to
EFVS and not to other vision systems that might be certified under
these regulations. The FAA agrees with the commenter that the rule
language, as proposed, would have required the continuous display of
symbology and imagery that was applicable only to EFVS and not to other
vision systems that might be certified under these regulations. The
airworthiness requirements of Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and
29.773 apply to any vision system such as an EFVS, EVS, SVS, or CVS
that uses a transparent display surface, such as a head up display,
head mounted display, or other equivalent display, that is located in
the pilot's outside field of view. Accordingly, the FAA is not
requiring the continuous display of EFVS symbology and imagery in the
airworthiness standards applicable to pilot compartment view. Sections
91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), however, include specific equipment
requirements that address the presentation of sensor imagery, aircraft
flight information, and flight symbology for the conduct of EFVS
operations.
Honeywell commented that the FAA should apply the airworthiness
standards to all vision systems. It believes that applying the
standards to all vision systems would potentially ease certification
delays and provide a clear path to certification for proven technology
that meets specified performance requirements. The FAA agrees and notes
that the airworthiness standards in Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773,
and 29.773 already address all vision systems with a transparent
display surface located in the pilot's outside field of view, such as a
head up display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. The
FAA also notes that AC 20-167A provides the means of compliance for
certifying a vision system with a transparent display surface located
in the pilot's outside field of view.
Airbus asked if the FAA would revise the pilot compartment view
requirements to apply to HDD vision systems. GAMA commented that the
NPRM references ``vision systems'' in several locations, which seem to
describe HUD-based systems. GAMA was concerned that the use of the term
``vision systems'' may negatively impact stand-alone head down systems,
such as

[[Page 90159]]

Synthetic Vision Systems, common in many general aviation aircraft.
GAMA recommended that the FAA review its use of the term ``vision
system'' and replace it with the term ``Enhanced Flight Vision
System,'' as defined in Sec. 1.1.
The FAA disagrees with GAMA. The FAA used the term ``vision
system'' to include any EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS that uses a transparent
display surface located in the pilot's outside field of view, such as a
head up-display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display. The
certification regulations in this rule do not apply to other vision
systems that have only a head down display. Accordingly, the FAA is not
revising these requirements to include HDDs.
Cessna Aircraft Company commented that the proposed certification
rules pertaining to vision systems were too general and did not include
all of the requirements of the operating rules. It suggested aligning
the requirements of Sec. Sec. 23.773(c), 25.773(e), 27.773(c) and
29.773(c) with the operating rules in terms of features and functions
that are required to meet the rule, or invoke them by reference.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter. Sections 23.773(c),
25.773(e), 27.773(c), and 29.773(c) contain airworthiness requirements
related to providing a safe pilot compartment view, not requirements
that are specific to meeting operating rules. The airworthiness
standards in these sections apply to all vision systems with
transparent display surfaces located in the pilot's outside field of
view. Not all of these vision systems may be used for EFVS operations.
The FAA is therefore including specific equipment requirements in Sec.
91.176 for EFVS operations. AC 20-167A contains a means of compliance
for EFVS, EVS, SVS, and CVS and provides guidance material on features
and functions required by the rule.
2. Pilot's Outside View--Terminology and Compensation for Interference
Sections 23.773(c)(1), 25.773(e)(1), 27.773(c)(1), and 29.773(c)(1)
require the vision system display to compensate for interference with
the pilot's outside field of view such that the combination of what is
visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it
enables the pilot using the vision system to perform the actions
necessary for the operation of the aircraft as safely and effectively
as he or she would without a vision system. The terminology in these
requirements differs slightly from the NPRM, which used the term
``pilot's outside view,'' rather than ``field of view.''
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation commented that the term ``pilot's
outside view'' was unclear. The FAA agrees and is adopting the term
``pilot's outside field of view'' to refer to what is visible to the
pilot from the pilot compartment through the windows of the flight deck
looking out, primarily forward of the aircraft, but not limited to the
forward field of view.
Elbit Systems of America commented that the FAA should either
revise or not adopt the requirement of Sec. Sec. 23.773(c)(1),
25.773(e)(1), 27.773(c)(1), and 29.773(c)(1), specifying that a vision
system must compensate for interference with the pilot's outside view
because it believes the requirement is ambiguous and requires
clarification. The FAA disagrees and is adopting the requirement that
the vision system display must compensate for the visual interference
it may cause. It may compensate by providing visual content on the
display and by providing EFVS controls that allow the pilot to use
sensor imagery safely in a variety of lighting conditions. While it is
in operation, the vision system must compensate for interference such
that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains
visible through and around it enables the pilot to perform those
maneuvers and procedures necessary for the safe operation of the
aircraft. The rule provides the performance requirements for the
system. AC 20-167A clarifies how EFVS may comply with this requirement.
3. Undistorted View Requirements
Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2)
state that the pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted
by the transparent display surface or the vision system imagery. This
differs slightly from what the FAA proposed based on concerns raised by
commenters.
Boeing commented that the term ``undistorted'' in proposed Sec.
25.773(e)(2) was not defined in the NPRM. Boeing asserted the term
``undistorted'' was subjective and that an applicant needs quantitative
standards for certification to ensure the interpretation of the term is
consistent and to ensure the applicant knows how to comply with the
requirement. Boeing noted that the FAA could address this term in AC
20-167, SAE ARP-5288, or some other airworthiness standards document
but asserted that a clear definition and means of compliance was
necessary.
Crew Systems commented that the requirement for the display to
provide an ``undistorted view of the external scene'' was excessive as
it is not possible to have a see-through panel with no distortion, and
suggested that the FAA require that the level of distortion could not
interfere with the pilot's ability to control the aircraft trajectory
with reference to the scene presented.
Elbit Systems of America stated that ``an undistorted view of the
external scene'' should be consistent with other regulatory guidance.
Elbit Systems contended that all optical systems have some allowable
optical distortion levels and that it is not possible to produce a
vision system that provides an undistorted view. Elbit pointed out that
AC 20-167A allows for optical distortion, and referred to Section
4.5(c)(4)(h)(iv), which states optical distortion should be 5 percent
or less across the minimal field of regard and no greater than 8
percent outside the minimal field of regard. Elbit believes the FAA
should allow for some inherent optical distortion.
Based on these comments, the FAA is revising the first sentence of
Sec. Sec. 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2)
to require that, ``The pilot's view of the external scene may not be
distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system
imagery.'' The FAA believes that this clarifies the intent of the rule.
While any see-through display may have some distortion, similar to the
window panels in the flight deck of the aircraft, such distortion must
be practically imperceptible to the pilot's eyes and create no adverse
misleading effects on the pilot's view. The level of distortion should
not interfere with or adversely affect the pilot's visual task
performance. This requirement is an extension of the requirement in
Sec. 25.773(a)(1) that the pilot's view be sufficiently undistorted.
AC 20-167A sets forth an acceptable means of complying with
requirements applicable to optical distortion, along with AC 25-11B,
appendix F.
4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and Head Mounted Display (HMD)
Considerations
Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2)
require that, when the vision system displays imagery and any symbology
referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, they must be
aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene.
Crew Systems commented that a vision system with a transparent
display surface requires alignment of the vision system cues with the
external scene. It also stated that these operations require

[[Page 90160]]

a high degree of reliability and integrity, and that the proposal
should include some mention of the effect of misalignment of the image
with reference to the real world. In particular, the use of head
mounted displays will require a precise alignment which in turn will
place demands on the head tracker system. The commenter thought the
rules should discuss equipment, systems, and installation requirements
(Sec. Sec. 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) as they apply to
head tracker systems. The commenter also contended that a head tracker
system should be fail operational,\74\ which would impose more
stringent requirements than have been required to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ A fail operational system is a system capable of completing
the specified phases of an operation following the failure of any
single system component after passing a point designated by the
applicable safety analysis (e.g., Alert Height).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA agrees with the safety intent of the comment. Image
alignment should not interfere with or adversely affect the pilot's
visual task performance. While all optical systems have some allowable
optical distortion levels, the level of distortion cannot interfere
with the pilot's ability to control the aircraft trajectory with
reference to the real world. For further discussion on distortion, see
the FAA's disposition of comments above in section III.H.3 of the
preamble.
With respect to Crew Systems comments on head tracker systems, the
FAA has not yet developed detailed criteria for head worn displays
(HWD), of which the head tracker is a component. As head wearable
display technology improves, AC 20-167A, and any subsequent revision,
may contain the means of compliance. The FAA has tasked the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) with developing an aerospace standard for
head wearable display performance criteria, which the FAA will consider
including in the advisory circular guidance criteria. Therefore, any
equipment, system, and installation criteria for a fail operational
head tracker system would be included in airworthiness and operational
guidance and not primarily in the pilot compartment view regulations.
The Helicopter Association International commented that the rule
should address head mounted display (HMD) head tracker integrity to
avoid potential misleading display of imagery or symbology resulting
from head tracker misalignment.
The FAA does not agree to explicitly address HMD head tracker
integrity in the rule. The performance based airworthiness standards of
Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 already address the
commenter's concerns. While no HMD installation has been approved by
the FAA, nor a complete set of airworthiness criteria established, the
FAA does expect to develop appropriate means of compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements in the future. As head-mounted or
head-worn displays are developed for use in vision system operations,
the FAA will develop specific guidance to assist in compliance.
ALPA commented that the rule requires an EFVS to provide an
undistorted view of the external scene, yet notes ALPA pilots who have
flown with EFVS report some EFVS images have parallax when viewed from
off-center. Assuming parallax is considered a distortion, ALPA
recommended that the FAA establish and quantify a tolerance level
regarding the acceptability of parallax in EFVS landing operations.
The regulations state that the pilot's view of the external scene
may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the
vision system imagery. Guidance relating to display criteria, including
parallax, is contained in AC 20-167A. As set forth in that AC,
``Parallax should not result in significant performance differences in
safety-related performance parameters (e.g., flare height, sink rate,
touchdown location, groundspeed during landing, exit and taxi) between
EFVS operations and visual operations in the same aircraft.'' AC 20-
167A, Section 4-5 contains additional guidance applicable to EFVS
displays.
5. Requirement To Provide a Means of Immediate Deactivation and
Reactivation of Vision System Imagery
As originally proposed, Sec. Sec. 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3),
27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3) require that the vision system provide a
means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate
and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing
the pilot's hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent)
or thrust controls, and for rotorcraft, without removing the pilot's
hands from the primary flight and power controls, such as cyclic and
collective, or their equivalent.
FedEx Express, Gulfstream, and Elbit Systems of America recommended
against including this requirement in Sec. Sec. 23.773(c)(3),
25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3). They asserted that these
regulations pertain to pilot compartment view and that it is not
necessary to include these details when they are also addressed in AC
20-167.
The FAA disagrees. The control requirement of Sec. Sec.
23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3) protects the
pilot's view of the outside scene. If the sensor imagery were to
obscure the pilot's view of the outside scene, the pilot should have a
readily available means to immediately remove the sensor imagery from
the HUD. Accordingly, the FAA is requiring immediate deactivation and
reactivation.
Eurocopter, American Eurocopter, and GAMA commented that it is not
clear whether the requirement applies to the imagery, the piloting
symbology, or both. They stated that the ability to deactivate and
reactivate the vision system imagery and the piloting symbology may be
affected by the type of technology on which the vision system is based.
As an example, they pointed out that if night vision goggles (NVGs)
were used as an EVS, pilots would have to remove their hands from the
flight controls to raise the goggles out of their field-of-view. They
recommended that the FAA clarify in the regulations that only the
imagery must be deactivated and reactivated on demand.
The FAA does not agree with the recommendation. The commenters'
concerns have already been addressed because the regulations specify
that the pilot must be able to immediately deactivate and reactivate
only the vision system imagery on demand. The FAA notes that applicants
should also comply with guidance applicable to HUD installations. In
addition, NVGs are not transparent displays and are not addressed by
Sec. Sec. 23.773, 25.773, 27.773 and 29.773. NVGs do not meet the
definition of an EFVS. Specifically, NVGs are not transparent when
turned off, do not provide the required aircraft flight information and
flight symbology, and are not certified to be used in lieu of natural
vision to descend below DA/DH or MDA during EFVS operations under IFR.
NVGs are aids to natural vision in VMC, not IMC.
Airbus commented that the certification requirement to provide the
pilot with a means to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision
system imagery on demand without removing the pilot's hands from the
primary flight and power controls is not relevant to all operations
where an EFVS might be used. It suggested that this airworthiness
certification requirement should not apply when a pilot uses an EFVS
for situation awareness only, i.e., when not used to conduct operations
under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b).

[[Page 90161]]

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's proposed exception.
Providing the pilot a means to immediately deactivate and reactivate
the vision system imagery on demand without removing the pilot's hands
from the primary flight and power controls is a minimum requirement
regardless of whether the EFVS is being used for situation awareness or
to conduct an EFVS operation. Because there are times when a pilot may
need to quickly remove or restore the sensor imagery during a critical
phase of flight, it is essential for the pilot to be able to quickly
remove or restore the vision system imagery on demand without removing
his or her hands from the primary flight and power controls. This
requirement, therefore, protects the pilot's view of the outside scene
and applies to all vision systems with a transparent display surface
located in the pilot's outside field of view.
6. Vision Systems and Requirements Applicable to Duties and Maneuvers
Sections 25.773(e) and 29.773(c) state that a vision system with a
transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view, such as a head-up display, head-mounted display, or other
equivalent display, must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(4) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4),
respectively, in nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions. These
requirements differ slightly from the NPRM based on a comment from
Sierra Nevada Corporation.
Sierra Nevada Corporation commented that Sec. Sec. 25.773(e)(1)
and (e)(4) and Sec. Sec. 29.773(c)(1) and (c)(4) apply to the duties
and maneuvers of Sec. Sec. 25.773(a) and 29.773(a), which are limited
to nonprecipitation conditions. Sierra Nevada Corporation thought it
reasonable that the requirements would also apply during precipitation
conditions. Sierra Nevada Corporation proposed that the requirements
apply in any precipitation and lighting conditions -- day or night--in
which the EFVS is to be certified.
The FAA agrees that the requirements should apply in both
precipitation and nonprecipitation conditions. Accordingly, the FAA is
revising the introductory language in Sec. Sec. 25.773(e) and
29.773(c) to address both precipitation and nonprecipitation
conditions. Lighting, however, is addressed in other airworthiness
standards.
7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS Installations
Rockwell Collins commented that FAA vision system issue papers \75\
have identified unique EFVS issues related to system operation and
safety, and inquired whether these issue papers will also be eliminated
based on the new airworthiness requirements for vision systems in the
rule and associated advisory circulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ The FAA uses issue papers to provide a structured means to
address certain issues in the type certification and type validation
processes. ``Issue Paper Process,'' AC No. 20-166A (Nov. 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA used HUD issue papers for general means of compliance with
part 25 and for special conditions related to pilot compartment view.
The HUD installation means of compliance issue papers are no longer
necessary now that AC 25-11, Revision B was published in October 2014.
AC 20-167A is used as the primary means of compliance for installations
of EFVS, EVS, SVS and CVS. The special conditions for display of vision
system video on the HUD will no longer be necessary after this final
rule becomes effective. However, an issue paper for dual-HUD
installations may still be used to address means of compliance with
occupant safety regulations, such as Sec. Sec. 25.562 and 25.785,
until a new policy statement is published to address this topic.
8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation and Bird Strike Requirements
Crew Systems commented that the FAA should explicitly require a
fixed head up display combiner to meet the bird strike requirements of
Sec. 25.775.
The FAA disagrees. Section 25.775 addresses design and construction
requirements for windshields and windows. These requirements provide an
appropriate level of safety against the hazard of a bird strike, and
additional requirements applicable to HUD installation would not
provide any additional safety benefit.

I. Related and Conforming Amendments (Sec. Sec. 91.175, 91.905, and
135.225)

The FAA did not receive any comments on the related and conforming
amendments it proposed in the NPRM. The FAA is therefore adopting the
related amendments as originally proposed. However, because operators
may continue to comply with Sec. 91.175(l) prior to March 13, 2018,
the FAA is not adopting the conforming amendments it originally
proposed to Sec. 91.175. Instead, the FAA is amending Sec. 91.175 to
include references to both Sec. 91.175(l) and Sec. 91.176 until March
13, 2018. The revisions to Sec. 91.175 are discussed in more detail
below.
In Sec. 91.175(c)(3)(vi), the FAA is revising the term ``visual
approach slope indicator'' to read ``the visual glideslope indicator,''
because the term ``visual approach slope indicator'' is overly
restrictive.
In Sec. 91.176(b), which contains the regulations that were moved
from Sec. 91.175(l), the FAA is revising ``DH or MDA'' to read ``DA/DH
or MDA'' to correct an inadvertent omission that occurred in a previous
rulemaking.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ In a previous rulemaking, ``Area Navigation (RNAV) and
Miscellaneous Amendments,'' 72 FR 31678 (Jun. 7, 2007), the FAA
changed most of the references to ``DH or MDA'' in Sec. 91.175 to
``DA/DH or MDA.'' However, it did not, as intended, change the
references to ``DH or MDA'' in Sec. 91.175(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is revising Sec. 91.905 to include Sec. 91.176 as a rule
subject to waiver. Section 91.175 was listed as one of the rules in
Sec. 91.905 that was subject to waiver, and the provisions applicable
to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE were moved from Sec.
91.175(l) and (m) to Sec. 91.176. Section 91.176 also contains
regulatory provisions applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout. As the FAA has already permitted EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the TDZE to be subject to waiver, the FAA is permitting the
regulations applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout also
to be subject to waiver.
The FAA is revising the introductory text of Sec. 91.175(c) to
refer to both paragraph (l) of Sec. 91.175 and Sec. 91.176 because a
person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE may
comply with either the requirements specified in Sec. 91.175(l) or
Sec. 91.176(b) prior to March 13, 2018.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ The requirements of paragraph (l) of Sec. 91.175 will
expire on March 13, 2018. Beginning on March 13, 2018, a person
conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply
with the requirements of Sec. 91.176. Therefore, effective March
13, 2018, the introductory text of Sec. 91.175(c) will be revised
to reference only Sec. 91.176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, Sec. 91.175(d)(1), which references Sec. 91.175(l),
will remain in the 14 CFR until March 13, 2018. The FAA is re-
designating Sec. 91.175(d)(2) as (d)(3) and is adding a new paragraph
(d)(2).\78\ New paragraph (d)(2) references Sec. 91.176 and refers to
paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iii) of Sec. 91.176, which contain
the visual references required for descent below 100 feet above the
TDZE for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and EFVS

[[Page 90162]]

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, respectively.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ The requirements in paragraph (d)(2) were originally
proposed as revisions to current paragraph (d)(1).
\79\ Effective March 13, 2018, the FAA will remove paragraph
(d)(1) and re-designate paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) as (d)(1) and
(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is also revising paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 91.175 so that
it references both paragraph (l) of that section and Sec. 91.176.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ Effective March 13, 2018, paragraph (e)(1) will be revised
to reference only Sec. 91.176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, as discussed in section III.E.5.d of this preamble,
the FAA is adding paragraph (n) to Sec. 91.175 to provide a transition
period for operators conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the
TDZE.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Effective March 13, 2018, paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.
91.175 will expire and paragraph (n) will be removed from Sec.
91.175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA is also revising Sec. 135.225, which prescribes IFR
takeoff, approach, and landing minimums, to correct a drafting error
that occurred when the 2004 EFVS final rule was adopted. This revision
was not proposed in the NPRM. The 2004 EFVS final rule, which made
revisions to Sec. 135.225, did not account for changes made to that
section by ``Regulation of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs and
On-Demand Operations'' (Ownership and On-Demand), a final rule
published in September 2003. 68 FR 54520. In Ownership and On-Demand,
the FAA established the concept of ``eligible on-demand operations'' in
part 135. This rule amended Sec. 135.225 to allow eligible on-demand
operations to conduct instrument approach procedures to airports
without weather reporting facilities. Structurally, this exception was
added as paragraph (b), existing paragraph (b) became paragraph (c),
and (c) became (d). Because the paragraphs shifted down a letter, the
cross reference in new Sec. 135.225(d) was changed from (b) to (c). In
January 2004, the FAA again amended Sec. 135.225 when the agency
published the EFVS final rule. The FAA intended in that rule to clarify
the language pertaining to weather minimums on the final approach
segment--that is, the rule text that was shifted from paragraph (c) to
paragraph (d) by the September 2003 rule. However, the agency did not
revise the final EFVS rule document to reflect that the paragraph
designation had changed as a result of the September 2003 rule. The
EFVS rule replaced paragraph (c) instead of the intended paragraph (d)
creating two paragraphs in the section on weather minimums during the
final approach segment and deleting the paragraph establishing what the
weather must be to begin the final approach segment of an instrument
approach. An FAA legal interpretation dated September 20, 2013,
concluded that the current rule language was a result of a drafting
error that arose because two final rules were proceeding close in time
and the second rule did not account for changes made to Sec. 135.225
by the first rule.\82\ The agency did not intend for paragraphs (c) and
(d) to apply to instrument approaches initiated using the exception
given to eligible on-demand operations in paragraph (b). Accordingly,
the FAA is now deleting paragraph (d), revising and re-designating
current paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and adding new paragraph (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip Kelsey from
Mark W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Implementation

As originally proposed, for initial implementation, the FAA is
authorizing EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities as
low as RVR 1,000 feet.\83\ Several commenters raised concerns about the
FAA's proposed implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ Airworthiness and certification criteria to support EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities as low as RVR
1,000 feet were developed through FAA and industry participation on
RTCA Special Committee 213 (SC-213). RTCA SC-213 was tasked with
developing minimum aviation system performance standards (MASPS) for
both EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE and EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout. The FAA incorporated MASPS for EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE into AC 20-167, Airworthiness
Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System,
Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment.
Because the airworthiness requirements to support EFVS operations in
very low visibilities would be different than those conducted in a
higher visibility range, SC-213 separated the MASPS for touchdown
and rollout operations into two activities--MASPS for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 1,000 feet and MASPS
for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 300 feet.
The FAA has revised AC 20-167 to incorporate MASPS for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 1,000 feet and
published them in AC 20-167A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FedEx Express (FedEx), Gulfstream, GAMA, Elbit Systems of America,
Honeywell, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and RTCA commented that the FAA's
statement in the NPRM about the status of RTCA DO-341, ``Minimum
Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for an Enhanced Flight
Vision System to Enable All-Weather Approach, Landing, and Rollout to a
Safe Taxi Speed,'' needs to be updated. They pointed out that DO-341,
which contains MASPS for an EFVS that would support EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout in visibilities down to RVR 300 feet, was
completed and published on September 26, 2012.
The FAA acknowledges that RTCA DO-341 was published on September
26, 2012, and that it contains industry recommendations for an EFVS
that would support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in
visibilities down to RVR 300 feet.
FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, Elbit Systems of America, and Honeywell
expressed concern over the FAA's proposal to limit initial
implementation of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to
visibilities of no lower than RVR 1,000 feet. They requested that the
FAA clarify that the RVR 1,000 feet visibility limitation is a starting
point for EFVS operations to touchdown, but that authorizations to
conduct EFVS operations in visibilities of less than RVR 1,000 feet
will be developed when EFVS equipment is developed and certified that
supports operations in lower visibility conditions. These commenters
and Dassault Aviation expressed concern over whether, or when, AC 20-
167A would be revised to incorporate the RTCA DO-341 criteria, which
contains MASPS for an EFVS that would support EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout in visibilities down to RVR 300 feet. The
commenters also stated that if there were no plans to adopt these
criteria, they saw no certification path for EFVS equipment that could
enable touchdown operations in visibilities of less than RVR 1,000
feet, which could limit investment in technology and adversely affect
the benefits of the new EFVS operating rule. Sierra Nevada Corporation
specifically requested that the FAA provide a certification path toward
lower than 1,000 RVR.
The FAA's statement in the notice that it proposed to limit initial
implementation of EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout to
visibilities of no lower than RVR 1,000 feet was not intended to be an
end point for EFVS authorizations. The FAA fully expects to develop
authorizations and enable a certification path for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout in less than RVR 1,000 feet conditions as EFVS
technology is developed that will support those operations. The FAA
recognizes that MASPS, as well as an operational concept, have been
developed through RTCA SC-213 for EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout in less than RVR 1,000 feet conditions. The FAA intends to
include operational and airworthiness certification guidance for those
EFVS operations, based in large part on the industry recommendations
found in DO-341. The FAA will publish acceptable methods of compliance
for these reduced-visibility operations in future revisions of AC 20-
167. Any proponent may propose an alternate

[[Page 90163]]

method of compliance for an EFVS that would support those operations.
FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, and Elbit Systems of America noted that
there are ongoing FAA/ICAO activities to harmonize requirements for low
visibility taxi operations in visibilities as low as RVR 300 feet and
that those activities assume EFVS will be an enabler for these
operations. These commenters felt the FAA should provide a statement
clarifying its intent with respect to low visibility taxi operations
using EFVS, especially if the FAA limits EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout to RVR 1,000 feet and does not plan to incorporate RTCA DO-
341 airworthiness criteria into AC 20-167A.
The FAA participates in several activities that seek to harmonize
vision system standards, concepts, and practices to the extent
practicable. Those activities include the HUD, EVS, SVS, and CVS
Subgroup of the ICAO Operations Panel (ICAO HESC), the All Weather
Operations Harmonization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AWOH ARC), and
the RTCA SC-213. The FAA notes that the EFVS rule does not preclude the
use of EFVS during taxi operations and recognizes that using an EFVS
can increase situation awareness during such operations. While there is
no regulatory requirement in the U.S. for an airport to have an
approved Low Visibility Operation/Surface Movement Guidance and Control
System Plan when the visibility falls below RVR 1,200 feet, the FAA
supports voluntary development of such plans and sees the value in
harmonizing those operations to the extent practicable.
Dassault Aviation noted that the FAA made reference to RTCA DO-315,
which was published on December 16, 2008. Dassault Aviation suggested
that the FAA refer to RTCA DO-315B, instead.
The FAA's intent in referencing RTCA DO-315 was to reference the
original version of the document, which first contained the MASPS for
EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA recognizes that DO-
315 was revised, and at this time, system design criteria for EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout are contained in RTCA DO-315B and
DO-341.

K. Miscellaneous Issues

In this section, the FAA discusses a host of unrelated issues. Some
of these issues were raised by commenters. Others resulted from the
FAA's own review of the NPRM.
1. Minimum Crew Requirements
Eurocopter and American Eurocopter stated that the EFVS operation
specified in Sec. 91.176(a)(2) implies a new kind of operation that
could impact minimum crew requirements. It recommended that the FAA
revise Sec. Sec. 23.1523, 25.1523, 27.1523, 29.1523, 23.1525, 25.1525,
27.1525, and 29.1525 to reflect EFVS operations.
The FAA disagrees. The minimum flight crew requirements in 14 CFR
parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 are sufficient and effective in establishing
the minimum flightcrew for the aircraft; they do not need to be revised
to reflect EFVS operations.
2. Failure Modes
Boeing commented that the rule does not adequately address failure
modes and crew responses. Boeing stated that natural vision appears to
be a mitigator for the loss of EFVS during touchdown operations down to
RVR 1000 feet. Boeing believes it is circular reasoning to allow EFVS
to replace natural vision, and then depend on natural vision in the
event of an EFVS failure. In addition, it believes design assurance
levels for different technologies, for example ILS and EFVS, need to be
similar to avoid biasing in favor of one technology over the other.
Boeing recommended that availability and reliability requirements be
specified in the rule or in AC 20-167A. Boeing stated these
clarifications and revisions are necessary so that designers and
operators will know what is expected in failure cases.
The FAA finds such revisions unnecessary. The requirements of
Sec. Sec. 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309 apply to failure
modes, hazard classifications, and failure probabilities. AC 20-167A
further addresses specific system safety considerations.
The FAA has defined a means of compliance in AC 20-167A to use EFVS
to provide sufficient enhanced flight visibility to complete an
instrument approach and landing in visibility conditions as low as RVR
1000 feet.
Operationally, EFVS may be used to meet enhanced flight visibility
and visual reference requirements for the instrument approach as stated
in the NPRM. When the enhanced flight visibility and visual reference
requirements of the regulations are met, descent and operation below
the DA/DH may continue. However, certification applicants should
account for failures of the EFVS in IMC below DA/DH. Generally, as with
loss of visibility during conventional instrument approaches, a pilot
may need to do a missed approach.
3. EFVS Equipment and Operational Considerations
ALPA and an individual commented that current IR-based EFVSs can
take several minutes to warm up before they are able to be used in EFVS
operations, and stated that operational guidance should account for
this delay when an EFVS is powered up just prior to starting an
instrument approach. The individual also commented that EFVS operations
will require a high degree of system reliability during adverse weather
conditions, and that if the EFVS were to malfunction close to the
ground, a potentially unsafe condition could exist. The commenters
recommended that EFVSs should have an in-flight checking capability to
confirm that the system is fully operational prior to beginning an
instrument approach procedure.
The commenters concerns are already addressed in Sec. 61.66 and AC
90-106. Section 61.66(a) and (b) specify that ground and flight
training must address preflight and in-flight preparation of EFVS
equipment for EFVS operations. AC 90-106A, Section 5, contains guidance
applicable to training and specifies that pilots should be familiar
with the warm-up requirements of the system, along with other
operational considerations, crew procedures, and crew coordination
items. AC 20-167A also contains guidance on EFVS system performance,
including system failure notifications. EFVS malfunctions detected by
the system, which can adversely affect the normal operation of the
EFVS, should be annunciated. At a minimum, specific in-flight failure
messages for sensor failure and frozen image should be displayed to the
flight crew.
4. Applicability of Previously Collected Data or Data Submitted on the
Basis of Similarity
In its proposal, the FAA noted that under the 2004 EFVS rule, an
EFVS installed on a U.S.-registered aircraft conducting EFVS operations
to 100 feet above the TDZE must be installed on that aircraft in
accordance with an FAA type design approval, namely a type certificate,
amended type certificate, or supplemental type certificate. The FAA
also stated that an EFVS that is currently certified to conduct EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE may not meet the airworthiness
standards necessary to support EFVS operations to touchdown and
rollout. Section 91.176(a)(1)(i) requires an aircraft to be equipped
with an operable EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness
requirements. Thus, the

[[Page 90164]]

FAA will require a similar certification process for an EFVS installed
on an aircraft used in EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout.
Rockwell Collins asked whether credit could be given during the
certification process for previously collected data. For example, if
video data was collected during a previous EFVS performance
demonstration that was conducted to 100 feet above the TDZE, could the
operator take credit for that data with a follow-on demonstration that
focused on rollout? It stated it believes this will be an ongoing issue
the FAA will need to address in a consistent manner.
The FAA cannot assume that an EFVS that was only demonstrated and
approved for EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE will also be
acceptable as a primary system for landing and rollout. Flight
demonstrations specific to EFVS operations below 100 feet above the
TDZE, landing, and rollout will usually be necessary. Flight test
demonstrations will be specifically focused on showing compliance with
specific requirements and criteria; hence, the flight test results may
not be extrapolated beyond their original purposes. EFVS flight test
demonstrations conducted prior to this rulemaking did not attempt to
establish the ability to use the EFVS for landing or rollout. Prior
flight testing that demonstrated the performance of the sensor in
coping with the reported atmospheric conditions, particularly the
collection and analysis of data comparing enhanced flight visibility to
flight visibility may offer useful information in support of approval
of the EFVS for landing and rollout. However, the EFVS should
demonstrate that it can be relied on as the primary means for operation
below 100 feet above the TDZE and for the landing and rollout.
CMC commented that certification credit for demonstrated EFVS
performance should be transferable to other installations that have the
same EFVS configuration. CMC pointed out that the details of an EFVS
installation may differ from one installation to another, and it
suggested that the FAA develop a framework for addressing these
differences. It stated that credit transfer from one installation to
another is not intended to replace all flight tests on a new platform
or installation. Instead, the credit transfer would allow for the use
of applicable data that was previously collected, in addition to flight
test data on the new platform, to form the basis of an EFVS performance
demonstration.
CMC asserted that this framework would enable EFVS suppliers,
aircraft manufacturers, and operators to utilize previous flight test
investments and thereby significantly reduce certification and
performance capability demonstration costs.
The applicant may follow existing provisions and practices for
establishing ``similarity'' of an equipment installation from one
aircraft to another by providing compliance data approved for the other
aircraft. The FAA will follow existing processes to evaluate the
applicability of data submitted on the basis of similarity and
recognizes the benefit in reducing repetitive certification and
performance demonstration costs.
However, since EFVS equipment can perform differently on dissimilar
aircraft, data used to show the compliance of one installation may not
be appropriate for use in demonstrating the compliance of another
installation.
5. Public Aircraft Operations
In the 2004 EFVS final rule and proposed Sec. 91.176, the FAA did
not distinguish between civil aircraft operations and public aircraft
operations.\84\ Thus, both the 2004 EFVS final rule and proposed Sec.
91.176 applied to public aircraft operations, other than the U.S.
military. Generally, public aircraft operations are not required to
meet the same certification and airworthiness requirements that are
imposed on civil aircraft. U.S. military aircraft generally meet
military certification and airworthiness standards. Because EFVS
operations are conducted in very low visibilities below minimums, the
FAA finds that there cannot be a distinction among aircraft used to
conduct EFVS operations in the National Airspace System. Each aircraft
that is used to conduct an EFVS operation, regardless of whether the
operation qualifies as a public aircraft operation, must meet the
airworthiness and certification requirements set forth in Sec.
91.176(a) or (b), as applicable to the EFVS operation being conducted
(except U.S. military aircraft). Furthermore, each pilot flightcrew
member conducting an EFVS operation, regardless of whether the
operation qualifies as a public aircraft operation, is required to meet
the training and recent flight experience requirements of Sec. 61.66
(except U.S. military pilots). Accordingly, the FAA is adding Sec.
91.176(c) to clarify that public aircraft operators who choose to
conduct EFVS operations under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b) must meet the
previously stated requirements. The FAA recognizes that certain public
aircraft operators who choose to conduct EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176 may have aircraft that cannot meet the FAA's certification and
airworthiness requirements. The FAA will consider the ability of these
public aircraft to conduct EFVS operations on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Section 1.1 defines ``civil aircraft'' as aircraft other
than public aircraft. Therefore, if a regulation applies only to
civil aircraft, it does not apply to public aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Qualification Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations in
the United States
Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii) describes the necessary qualifications
for persons conducting EFVS operations in the United States. In the
NPRM, proposed Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(vi) would have required, just as
Sec. 91.175(l)(5)(ii) required, each required pilot flightcrew member
for a foreign person to meet the requirements of the civil aviation
authority of the State of the operator. Section 129.1 defines ``foreign
person'' as any person who is not a citizen of the United States and
who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage solely
outside the United States. The FAA is concerned that a broader
population than that defined by the term ``foreign person'' in Sec.
129.1 will conduct EFVS operations in the United States. For example,
the term ``foreign person'' failed to capture persons acting as
required pilot flightcrew members for foreign air carriers subject to
part 129, and any persons serving as required pilot flightcrew members
of foreign registered aircraft. The FAA is, therefore, revising
proposed Sec. 91.176(a)(2)(vii) to more clearly identify the
categories of persons who might conduct EFVS operations in the United
States, and to ensure that the regulation adequately describes the
necessary qualifications for these persons.
Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(A) now requires each person exercising
the privileges of a U.S. pilot certificate, or any person serving as a
required pilot flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, to be
qualified in accordance with part 61, and as applicable, the training,
testing, and qualification provisions of parts 91 subpart K, 121, 125,
or 135 that apply to the operation. Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(B) now
requires each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a
foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a
required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft to be
qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil
aviation authority of the State of the

[[Page 90165]]

operator for the EFVS operation to be conducted.
7. Economic Comments
Boeing requested that the FAA explain how it established the number
of aircraft used in the economic analysis so that operators can better
judge their costs.
In order to estimate the total number of affected aircraft for the
NPRM, the FAA asked original EFVS equipment manufacturers and aircraft
manufacturers for the information. The FAA determined the total number
of EFVS-equipped aircraft based on the responses received from those
manufacturers. The FAA did not obtain a future equipment estimate from
Boeing although the Agency requested that Boeing provide the projected
number of aircraft it plans to equip or acquire with EFVS by year from
2012 onward. Boeing also commented that it is unclear in the NPRM
whether the estimated paperwork burden is per airplane, per operator,
or fleetwide. It stated that it can be deduced by subsequent
paragraphs, but clarification of this issue would avoid confusion and
lead to a clearer understanding.
The estimated paperwork burden of $86,000 covers the entire fleet
of EFVS-equipped aircraft.
An individual stated that this rule could provide benefits to
student pilots; however, one challenge would be increased training
costs, including EFVS training.
The decision to conduct EFVS operations addressed by this rule is
voluntary and optional. Therefore, this rule will not impose costs on a
trainee who chooses not to conduct EFVS operations in the future.
Furthermore, the FAA believes that student pilots typically will not
conduct EFVS operations during their initial training.
Airbus commented on the training requirement cost in the proposed
regulatory evaluation. Airbus stated that the incremental training cost
of $750 per pilot does not take into account the benefits and the
reduced operational costs that would result from a dual HUD
configuration. The FAA did not take dual HUD configurations into
account when estimating the incremental training cost of $750 because
the FAA sought to use a conservative estimate in the regulatory
evaluation.
Airbus explained that it cannot comment on certification costs
because Airbus has not yet applied for EFVS certification. However, in
commenting on the benefits section of the proposed regulatory
evaluation, Airbus asked what the FAA expects from an applicant in
terms of demonstrating that ``missed approaches and delayed take-offs''
are minimized.\85\ The FAA does not expect nor require an EFVS operator
to demonstrate benefits in order to utilize extended EFVS capabilities.
The FAA believes that enhanced EFVS capabilities will result in
unquantifiable benefits, which include the reduction of ``missed
approaches and delayed take-offs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ Airbus also asked what the FAA meant in terms of airborne
sensor performance requirement. The FAA is not responding to this
comment because it is outside the scope of the regulatory
evaluation. The FAA reopened the comment period on August 20, 2015
to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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, the 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 impacts of this final rule. We suggest that
readers seeking greater details read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which we placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify the costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or other private sectors by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.

Parties Potentially Affected by this Rulemaking
Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) producing enhanced
flight vision systems (EFVS) or other vision systems, in accordance
with parts 23, 25, 27, or 29
Persons installing EFVS or other vision systems with a
transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view
Persons conducting EFVS operations under parts 91, 121,
125, 129, or part 135
Persons conducting EFVS training

Principal Assumptions and Sources of Information
A 10-year period for this analysis is used because this
period captures all significant cost impacts
Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management & Budget,
Circular A-4, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis
of Federal Programs,'' October 29, 1992, p. 8, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/)
An average of 4 pilots assigned to each EFVS-equipped
aircraft
OEMs and two operators provided the number of EFVS-
equipped aircraft
Operators of some aircraft equipped with older EFVS units
will not seek certification for EFVS to touchdown and rollout
The estimation of the incremental training cost per person
is approximately $750 based on data collected from training centers
Certification costs of incremental EFVS capabilities to
touchdown and rollout are approximately $1 million in the aggregate
Aircraft operations over the next 10 years will grow at
about 2.53% per year based on the FAA 2015 forecast (the general
aviation turbojet, FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2015)\86\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ The FAA forecast for active general aviation (GA) turbine
jets is 2.53% for the period of 2015-2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule
Since this final rule is voluntary, the FAA expects those who
choose to engage in extended EFVS operations will do so only if the
expected benefit to them exceeds the cost they incur. The

[[Page 90166]]

final rule will enable expanded EFVS operations, which will increase
access, efficiency and throughput in low visibility conditions, and
minimize potential for missed approaches and delayed take-offs. In
addition, EFVS permits low visibility operations on a greater number of
approach procedure types. Changes in the U.S. aviation
infrastructure,\87\ such as the transition from incandescent to light-
emitting diode (LED) approach lights, could potentially impact the near
term benefits for persons using EFVS equipment, but may not impact
future benefits of EFVS equipment designed to be interoperable with
LEDs. The impact on the benefits is undetermined because both the
infrastructure and EFVS capabilities are evolving. Benefits of this
final rule will be realized by averting costs related to interrupted
flight operations due to low visibility resulting in lost passenger
time and extra fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ FAA airport infrastructure decisions are independent from
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminating the requirement to obtain a waiver from Flight
Standards when conducting certain EFVS operations will save applicants
time for processing paperwork. Cost saving of waiver elimination is
reflected in the FAA's paperwork reduction estimates.
Revisions to pilot compartment view requirements for vision systems
with a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field
of view will codify the current practice of issuing special conditions
for each of these vision systems by providing industry with known
requirements for the certification of these systems under parts 23, 25,
27, and 29. Because the revisions to pilot compartment view
requirements will streamline the certification process for these vision
systems by eliminating the need to issue special conditions, the FAA
and applicants will save the associated time and expense. The full
extent of these benefits has not been determined and therefore has not
been quantified in this analysis.
Costs of This Rule
The regulatory costs attributed to the requirements are those above
and beyond the current regulation and common practice. The FAA
estimates compliance costs as the incremental differences in costs,
resulting from the changes in training, equipment and certification
requirements. Data were obtained from EFVS original equipment
manufacturers, training centers, and two operators. The total
incremental cost attributable to the requirements equals nominal
training cost ($4.1 million) plus the initial certification cost ($1
million). The compliance cost of the equipment requirements is
negligible. The total incremental cost of the final rule is
approximately $5.1 million for the ten year period. The present value
of that is approximately $4.1 million using a seven percent discount
rate. The following table presents the summary of the regulatory costs
in 2014 dollars (nominal value) and present value (PV).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
Cost component Nominal cost at 7% ($ at 3% ($
($ million) million) million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Cost................................................... $4.1 $3.1 $3.5
Certification Cost.............................................. 1 1 1
Equipment Cost..................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5.1 4.1 4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefit/Cost Summary
The total estimated cost of this final rule over 10 years is
approximately $5.1 million nominal value or $4.1 million present value
at a 7% discount rate. The annualized cost of this final rule in
current dollar value is approximately a half million dollars. These
estimated compliance costs will be incurred by those operators who want
improved EFVS capabilities. OEMs are already proceeding with efforts to
expand EFVS capabilities which, by itself, indicate the benefits of
this final rule will likely exceed the costs. The revisions to pilot
compartment view requirements for vision systems with a transparent
display surface located in the pilot's outside field of view will not
impose additional costs from those currently incurred using the special
conditions process. The FAA believes the final rule will have benefits
exceeding costs based on the likelihood that OEMs and operators will
voluntarily incur the costs of the final rule in order to realize
expected benefits.

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.
As stated in the initial regulatory flexibility determination, the
FAA expects many small entities will benefit from this final rule. The
FAA did not receive comments on the initial regulatory flexibility
determination. Prior to the final rule, the regulations permitted
operators to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The
final rule permits operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision
from 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown and rollout. Operators under
parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 may conduct EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout under the final rule. Accordingly, the final
rule may affect firms operating under those parts. The SBA size
standard as defined in 13 CFR 121.201, is the largest size that a

[[Page 90167]]

business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be to remain
classified as a small business by the SBA. The SBA size standard in
each of the four North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
air transportation industries is 1,500 employees.
We estimate that 982 aircraft are currently equipped with EFVS,
which includes both large and small entities. Very few part 121 and
part 135 operators have installed EFVS in their aircraft. A few part 91
subpart K, 121, or 135 operators have installed EFVS in their aircraft.
Most of the operators with EFVS-equipped aircraft are part 91 operators
(other than part 91 subpart K operators). Many part 91 operators are
small entities.
For small entities who have been conducting EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE under the old regulations, but who choose not to
conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, the final rule does
not impose additional cost. These small entities are still eligible to
conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE using their old EFVS
equipment, which has already been certified for EFVS operations to 100
feet above the TDZE. For small entities who have been conducting EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the TDZE under the old regulations, but
who choose to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, the
final rule will impose no additional installation costs because most
systems installed after 2006 meet the requirements for EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout. The final rule will, however, impose training
costs on these small entities. We estimate a one-time training cost of
$750 per pilot, which accounts for the cost of training from 100 feet
above the TDZE to touchdown and rollout. The FAA finds that this
estimated training cost, even if for 4 pilots per aircraft, would not
have a significant economic impact on the small entities affected by
the final rule, because the equipment flown is valued in the tens of
millions and these owners voluntarily incur these costs.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the FAA certifies 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
the final rule will not impose obstacles to foreign commerce, as
foreign exporters do not have to change their current export products
to the United States; and that the final rule will impose the same
costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral
trade impact.

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
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act 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. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following information collection
requirements:
Section 61.66 requires pilots to keep records of training
and recent flight experience.
Section 91.176(a) requires persons conducting operations
under part 91 to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with letters of
authorization for the use of EFVS.
Below, we discuss each of these information collection requirements
in more detail.
The information collections in Sec. 61.66 are already approved in
OMB control number 2120-0021. The paperwork burden under Sec. 61.66
comprises documentation of training, recent flight experience, and
refresher training. The following analyses were conducted under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501). If some operators
eventually choose to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout,
the provisions of Sec. 61.66 would result in a requirement to keep
records of training, recent flight experience, and refresher training.
The cost of the annualized paperwork burden is determined by
multiplying the number of pilots per EFVS-equipped aircraft (four) by
the number of EFVS aircraft (982) and then by the time of complying
with the paperwork requirements for each pilot. Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations already require flight crewmembers to document and
record training and aeronautical experience required to meet recent
flight experience requirements. 14 CFR 61.51. Therefore, the paperwork
burden resulting from Sec. 61.66 is already accounted for in the cost
estimate contained in OMB control number 2120-0021.
For ease of readability, we will explain the portion of the total
cost estimate that pertains to documenting and recording EFVS recent
flight experience. Operators are required to log their approaches using
EFVS in 6 months in compliance with the recent flight experience
requirements of the new rule. The action of logging each approach in a
semiannual frequency can be done manually or electronically. We
estimated the time required to complete recordkeeping by flight
crewmembers would be about 0.10 hours semiannually or 0.20 hours
annually. Assuming 3,928 pilots would be affected by the recordkeeping
provisions of the rule, it would require about 786 hours of annual
paperwork, and approximately $86,000 nominal cost at the maximum based
on the average wage rate of $109 for flight crewmembers from the FAA
Form 41. This hourly burden and cost is already accounted for under OMB
control number 2120-0021.
The information collection in Sec. 91.176(a) expands an existing
OMB-approved collection of information that is approved under OMB
control number 2120-0005. This collection of information governs
information that the FAA collects in order to assure compliance with
part 91. The

[[Page 90168]]

requirements in Sec. 91.176(a) increase the burden of this already-
existing collection of information. Section 91.176(a) pertains to EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout. Except as provided in paragraphs
91.176(a)(2)(ix) through 91.176(a)(2)(xii), a person conducting
operations under part 91 must conduct the operation in accordance with
a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS unless the operation is
conducted in an aircraft that has been issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the purpose of research and
development or showing compliance with regulations. A person applying
to the FAA for a letter of authorization must submit an application in
a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator. Approximately 38
EFVS operators will spend about 0.5 hours annually to submit a letter
of authorization to the FAA. Each paperwork hour costs approximately
$23. Multiplying estimated written requests by average hour per
request, we estimate the total annual paperwork burden to be 19 hours.
We multiply 19 hours of paperwork burden by an estimated hour wage rate
of $23 to derive the estimated annual paperwork cost burden to be $
437. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted this information collection requirement
to OMB for its review.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,
promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges
involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other
issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the
policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has
determined that this action would have no effect on international
regulatory cooperation.
Harmonization. The FAA participates on several vision system
committees and working groups where international harmonization of
standards, concepts, and practices is accomplished to the extent
practicable. RTCA SC-213 was established December 2006 and is
developing operational concepts and MASPS for EFVS, EVS, SVS, and CVS.
The FAA, industry representatives from the United States and other
countries, and other civil aviation authorities participate on this
committee. Eurocae Work Group 79 is also a joint working group with
RTCA SC-213. The ICAO HESC focuses on developing definitions,
standards, and guidance material pertaining to vision systems for ICAO
Annex 6, Parts I-III. The FAA is a member of the ICAO HESC subgroup and
actively participates in this committee's activities and output. In
2012, the FAA established the AWOH ARC. Recognizing that significant
issues exist within the international aviation community and regulators
regarding interoperability and standardization for low visibility
operations, the FAA established the AWOH ARC to identify areas where
existing criteria and guidance are inadequate or nonexistent, to
develop recommendations for implementing new regulatory criteria and
guidance material needed by all stakeholders, and to produce consensus
positions for global harmonization. In addition to other low visibility
initiatives, the AWOH ARC facilitates international understanding of
EFVS operations and provides recommendations for harmonizing those
operations.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1F 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 paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

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.

VI. How to Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

[[Page 90169]]

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 27

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 91

Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen,
Airports, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 1.1 by adding the definition of ``EFVS operation'' in
alphabetical order and by revising the definition for ``Enhanced flight
vision system (EFVS)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 1.1 General definitions.

* * * * *
EFVS operation means an operation in which visibility conditions
require an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to perform an
approach or landing, determine enhanced flight visibility, identify
required visual references, or conduct a rollout.
Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) means an installed aircraft
system which uses an electronic means to provide a display of the
forward external scene topography (the natural or manmade features of a
place or region especially in a way to show their relative positions
and elevation) through the use of imaging sensors, including but not
limited to forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave radiometry,
millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image intensification. An
EFVS includes the display element, sensors, computers and power
supplies, indications, and controls.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec. 1.2 by adding the abbreviation ``VGSI'' in alphabetical
order to read as follows:

Sec. 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols.

* * * * *
VGSI means visual glide slope indicator.
* * * * *

PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
4. The authority citation for part 23 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
5. Amend Sec. 23.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 23.773 Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
(c) A vision system with a transparent display surface located in
the pilot's outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head
mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following
requirements:
(1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must
compensate for interference with the pilot's outside field of view such
that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains
visible through and around it, enables the pilot to perform the
maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the pilot
compartment to meet the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted by
the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When
the vision system displays imagery and any symbology referenced to the
imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology,
flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery
and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene.
(3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using
the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system
imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary
flight controls or thrust controls.
(4) When the vision system is not in operation it may not restrict
the pilot from performing the maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section and the pilot compartment from meeting the provisions
of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
6. The authority citation for part 25 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
7. Amend Sec. 25.773 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 25.773 Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
(e) Vision systems with transparent displays. A vision system with
a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other
equivalent display, must meet the following requirements in
nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions:
(1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must
compensate for interference with the pilot's outside field of view such
that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains
visible through and around it, enables the pilot to perform the
maneuvers and normal duties of paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted by
the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When
the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced
to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude
symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue,
that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the
external scene.
(3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using
the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system
imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary
flight controls or thrust controls.
(4) When the vision system is not in operation it may not restrict
the pilot

[[Page 90170]]

from performing the maneuvers specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section or the pilot compartment from meeting the provisions of
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
8. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
9. Amend Sec. 27.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 27.773 Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
(c) A vision system with a transparent display surface located in
the pilot's outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head
mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following
requirements:
(1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must
compensate for interference with the pilot's outside field of view such
that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains
visible through and around it, allows the pilot compartment to satisfy
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section.
(2) The pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted by
the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When
the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced
to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude
symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue,
that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the
external scene.
(3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using
the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system
imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary
flight and power controls, or their equivalent.
(4) When the vision system is not in operation it must permit the
pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
(b) of this section.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
10. The authority citation for part 29 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
11. Amend Sec. 29.773 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 29.773 Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
(c) Vision systems with transparent displays. A vision system with
a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of
view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other
equivalent display, must meet the following requirements in
nonprecipitation and precipitation conditions:
(1) While the vision system display is in operation, it must
compensate for interference with the pilot's outside field of view such
that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains
visible through and around it, allows the pilot compartment to satisfy
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(2) The pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted by
the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When
the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced
to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude
symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue,
that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the
external scene.
(3) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using
the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system
imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary
flight and power controls, or their equivalent.
(4) When the vision system is not in operation it must permit the
pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
12. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
13. Amend Sec. 61.57 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read as
follows:

Sec. 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is
employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct
operations under part 121 when the pilot is engaged in a flight
operation under part 91 or 121 for that certificate holder if the pilot
in command complies with Sec. Sec. 121.436 and 121.439 of this
chapter.
(3) This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is
employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct
operations under part 135 when the pilot is engaged in a flight
operation under parts 91 or 135 for that certificate holder if the
pilot in command is in compliance with Sec. Sec. 135.243 and 135.247
of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
14. Add Sec. 61.66 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.66 Enhanced Flight Vision System Pilot Requirements

(a) Ground training. (1) Except as provided under paragraphs (f)
and (h) of this section, no person may manipulate the controls of an
aircraft or act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS
operation conducted under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter, or
serve as a required pilot flightcrew member during an EFVS operation
conducted under Sec. 91.176(a) of this chapter, unless that person--
(i) Receives and logs ground training under a training program
approved by the Administrator; and
(ii) Obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an
authorized training provider certifying the person satisfactorily
completed the ground training appropriate to the category of aircraft
for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege.
(2) The ground training must include the following subjects:
(i) Those portions of this chapter that relate to EFVS flight
operations and limitations, including the Airplane Flight Manual or
Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations;
(ii) EFVS sensor imagery, required aircraft flight information, and
flight symbology;
(iii) EFVS display, controls, modes, features, symbology,
annunciations, and associated systems and components;
(iv) EFVS sensor performance, sensor limitations, scene
interpretation, visual anomalies, and other visual effects;
(v) Preflight planning and operational considerations associated
with using EFVS during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and
landing phases of flight, including the use of EFVS for instrument
approaches, operating below DA/DH or MDA, executing missed approaches,
landing, rollout, and balked landings;
(vi) Weather associated with low visibility conditions and its
effect on EFVS performance;
(vii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination procedures
when using EFVS; and

[[Page 90171]]

(viii) Interpretation of approach and runway lighting systems and
their display characteristics when using an EFVS.
(b) Flight training. (1) Except as provided under paragraph (h) of
this section, no person may manipulate the controls of an aircraft or
act as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation under
Sec. 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter unless that person--
(i) Receives and logs flight training for the EFVS operation under
a training program approved by the Administrator; and
(ii) Obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an
authorized training provider certifying the person is proficient in the
use of EFVS in the category of aircraft in which the training was
provided for the EFVS operation to be conducted.
(2) Flight training must include the following tasks:
(i) Preflight and inflight preparation of EFVS equipment for EFVS
operations, including EFVS setup and use of display, controls, modes
and associated systems, and adjustments for brightness and contrast
under day and night conditions;
(ii) Proper piloting techniques associated with using EFVS during
taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and rollout, including
missed approaches and balked landings;
(iii) Proper piloting techniques for the use of EFVS during
instrument approaches, to include operations below DA/DH or MDA as
applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted, under both day and
night conditions;
(iv) Determining enhanced flight visibility;
(v) Identifying required visual references appropriate to EFVS
operations;
(vi) Transitioning from EFVS sensor imagery to natural vision
acquisition of required visual references and the runway environment;
(vii) Using EFVS sensor imagery, required aircraft flight
information, and flight symbology to touchdown and rollout, if the
person receiving training will conduct EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176(a) of this chapter; and
(viii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination
procedures when using an EFVS.
(c) Supplementary EFVS training. A person qualified to conduct an
EFVS operation under Sec. 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter who seeks
to conduct an additional EFVS operation for which that person has not
received training must--
(1) Receive and log the ground and flight training required by
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, under a training program
approved by the Administrator, appropriate to the additional EFVS
operation to be conducted; and
(2) Obtain a logbook or training record endorsement from the
authorized training provider certifying the person is proficient in the
use of EFVS in the category of aircraft in which the training was
provided for the EFVS operation to be conducted.
(d) Recent flight experience: EFVS. Except as provided in
paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section, no person may manipulate the
controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation or act as pilot in
command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation unless, within 6
calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performs
and logs six instrument approaches as the sole manipulator of the
controls using an EFVS under any weather conditions in the category of
aircraft for which the person seeks the EFVS privilege. The instrument
approaches may be performed in day or night conditions; and
(1) One approach must terminate in a full stop landing; and
(2) For persons authorized to exercise the privileges of Sec.
91.176(a), the full stop landing must be conducted using the EFVS.
(e) EFVS refresher training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(h) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the recent flight
experience requirements of paragraph (d) of this section for more than
six calendar months may reestablish EFVS currency only by
satisfactorily completing an approved EFVS refresher course in the
category of aircraft for which the person seeks the EFVS privilege. The
EFVS refresher course must consist of the subjects and tasks listed in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section applicable to the EFVS
operations to be conducted.
(2) The EFVS refresher course must be conducted by an authorized
training provider whose instructor meets the training requirements of
this section and, if conducting EFVS operations in an aircraft, the
recent flight experience requirements of this section.
(f) Military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed
Forces. (1) The training requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section applicable to EFVS operations conducted under Sec. 91.176(a)
of this chapter do not apply to a military pilot or former military
pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that person documents satisfactory
completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout by the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) The training requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section applicable to EFVS operations conducted under Sec. 91.176(b)
of this chapter do not apply to a military pilot or former military
pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that person documents satisfactory
completion of ground and flight training in EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the touchdown zone elevation by the U.S. Armed Forces.
(3) A military pilot or former military pilot in the U.S. Armed
Forces may satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section if he or she documents satisfactory
completion of an EFVS proficiency check in the U.S. Armed Forces within
6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, the check was
conducted by a person authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to administer
the check, and the person receiving the check was a member of the U.S.
Armed Forces at the time the check was administered.
(g) Use of full flight simulators. A level C or higher full flight
simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS may be used to meet the flight
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
of this section. The FFS must be evaluated and qualified for EFVS
operations by the Administrator, and must be:
(1) Qualified and maintained in accordance with part 60 of this
chapter, or a previously qualified device, as permitted in accordance
with Sec. 60.17 of this chapter;
(2) Approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers to be
conducted; and
(3) Equipped with a daylight visual display if being used to meet
the flight training requirements of this section.
(h) Exceptions. (1) A person may manipulate the controls of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation without meeting the requirements of
this section in the following circumstances:
(i) When receiving flight training to meet the requirements of this
section under an approved training program, provided the instructor
meets the requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in
the category of aircraft for which the training is being conducted.
(ii) During an EFVS operation performed in the course of satisfying
the recent flight experience requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section, provided another individual is serving as pilot in command of
the aircraft during the EFVS operation and that individual meets the
requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in the

[[Page 90172]]

category of aircraft in which the flight is being conducted.
(iii) During an EFVS operation performed in the course of
completing EFVS refresher training in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this section, provided the instructor providing the refresher training
meets the requirements in this section to perform the EFVS operation in
the category of aircraft for which the training is being conducted.
(2) The requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do
not apply if a person is conducting a flight or series of flights in an
aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec.
21.191 of this chapter for the purpose of research and development or
showing compliance with regulations, provided the person has knowledge
of the subjects specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and has
experience with the tasks specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
applicable to the EFVS operations to be conducted.
(3) The requirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section do not apply to a pilot who:
(i) Is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to
conduct operations under part 121, 125, or 135 when the pilot is
conducting an EFVS operation for that certificate holder under part 91,
121, 125, or 135, as applicable, provided the pilot conducts the
operation in accordance with the certificate holder's operations
specifications for EFVS operations;
(ii) Is employed by a person who holds a letter of deviation
authority issued under Sec. 125.3 of this chapter when the pilot is
conducting an EFVS operation for that person under part 125, provided
the pilot is conducting the operation in accordance with that person's
letter of authorization for EFVS operations; or
(iii) Is employed by a fractional ownership program manager to
conduct operations under part 91 subpart K when the pilot is conducting
an EFVS operation for that program manager under part 91, provided the
pilot is conducting the operation in accordance with the program
manager's management specifications for EFVS operations.
(4) The requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do
not apply if a person is conducting EFVS operations under Sec.
91.176(b) of this chapter and that person documents that prior to March
13, 2018, that person satisfactorily completed ground and flight
training on EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation.
(5) The requirements specified in this section do not apply if a
person is conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown
zone elevation in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 91.175(l)
and (m) of this chapter prior to March 13, 2018.

Sec. 61.66 [Amended]

0
15. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 61.66 by removing paragraph
(h)(5).

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
16. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
17. Amend Sec. 91.175 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3)(vi);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d)(3) and revise it;
0
c. Add new paragraph (d)(2);
0
d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and
0
e. Add paragraph (n).
The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

* * * * *
(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph
(l) of this section or Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or
MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military
aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an
approach below the authorized DA/DH unless--
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) The visual glideslope indicator.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) For operations conducted under Sec. 91.176 of this part, the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) or (b)(3)(iii), as applicable,
of that section are not met; or
(3) For all other operations under this part and parts 121, 125,
129, and 135, the flight visibility is less than the visibility
prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.
(e) * * *
(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l)
of this section or Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, and the requirements
of that paragraph or section are not met at either of the following
times:
* * * * *
(n) Before March 13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation must comply with either the
requirements of paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section or with the
requirements of Sec. 91.176(b) of this part. Beginning on March 13,
2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation must comply with the requirements of Sec.
91.176(b) of this part. The requirements of paragraphs (l) and (m) of
this section will expire on March 13, 2018.

0
18. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 91.175 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(1);
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) as (d)(1) and (2),
respectively;
0
d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and
0
e. Remove paragraphs (l), (m), and (n).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

* * * * *
(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in Sec.
91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot
may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the
authorized DA/DH unless--
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section or Sec. 91.176 of this part, and the requirements of that
paragraph or section are not met at either of the following times:
* * * * *

0
19. Add Sec. 91.176 to read as follows:

Sec. 91.176 Straight-in landing operations below DA/DH or MDA using
an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) under IFR.

(a) EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator to use an MDA as a DA/DH with vertical
navigation on an instrument approach procedure, or unless paragraph (d)
of this section applies, no person may conduct an EFVS operation in an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, at any
airport below the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout unless the
minimums used for the particular approach procedure being flown include
a DA or DH, and the following requirements are met:
(1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be equipped with an operable
EFVS that

[[Page 90173]]

meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. The EFVS must:
(A) Have an electronic means to provide a display of the forward
external scene topography (the applicable natural or manmade features
of a place or region especially in a way to show their relative
positions and elevation) through the use of imaging sensors, including
but not limited to forward-looking infrared, millimeter wave
radiometry, millimeter wave radar, or low-light level image
intensification.
(B) Present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information, and
flight symbology on a head up display, or an equivalent display, so
that the imagery, information and symbology are clearly visible to the
pilot flying in his or her normal position with the line of vision
looking forward along the flight path. Aircraft flight information and
flight symbology must consist of at least airspeed, vertical speed,
aircraft attitude, heading, altitude, height above ground level such as
that provided by a radio altimeter or other device capable of providing
equivalent performance, command guidance as appropriate for the
approach to be flown, path deviation indications, flight path vector,
and flight path angle reference cue. Additionally, for aircraft other
than rotorcraft, the EFVS must display flare prompt or flare guidance.
(C) Present the displayed EFVS sensor imagery, attitude symbology,
flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, and other
cues, which are referenced to the EFVS sensor imagery and external
scene topography, so that they are aligned with, and scaled to, the
external view.
(D) Display the flight path angle reference cue with a pitch scale.
The flight path angle reference cue must be selectable by the pilot to
the desired descent angle for the approach and be sufficient to monitor
the vertical flight path of the aircraft.
(E) Display the EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight information,
and flight symbology such that they do not adversely obscure the
pilot's outside view or field of view through the cockpit window.
(F) Have display characteristics, dynamics, and cues that are
suitable for manual control of the aircraft to touchdown in the
touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing and during rollout.
(ii) When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required,
the aircraft must be equipped with a display that provides the pilot
monitoring with EFVS sensor imagery. Any symbology displayed may not
adversely obscure the sensor imagery of the runway environment.
(2) Operations. (i) The pilot conducting the EFVS operation may not
use circling minimums.
(ii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must have adequate
knowledge of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the
procedures to be used.
(iii) The aircraft must be equipped with, and the pilot flying must
use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(iv) When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required,
the pilot monitoring must use the display specified in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) to monitor and assess the safe conduct of the approach,
landing, and rollout.
(v) The aircraft must continuously be in a position from which a
descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal
rate of descent using normal maneuvers.
(vi) The descent rate must allow touchdown to occur within the
touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing.
(vii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must meet the following
requirements--
(A) A person exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate
issued under this chapter, any person serving as a required pilot
flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person serving
as a required pilot flightcrew member for a part 121, 125, or 135
operator, must be qualified in accordance with part 61 and, as
applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of
subpart K of this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter that
apply to the operation; or
(B) Each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a
foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a
required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft, must
be qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil
aviation authority of the State of the operator for the EFVS operation
to be conducted.
(viii) A person conducting operations under this part must conduct
the operation in accordance with a letter of authorization for the use
of EFVS unless the operation is conducted in an aircraft that has been
issued an experimental certificate under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter
for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with
regulations, or the operation is being conducted by a person otherwise
authorized to conduct EFVS operations under paragraphs (a)(2)(ix)
through (xii) of this section. A person applying to the FAA for a
letter of authorization must submit an application in a form and manner
prescribed by the Administrator.
(ix) A person conducting operations under subpart K of this part
must conduct the operation in accordance with management specifications
authorizing the use of EFVS.
(x) A person conducting operations under part 121, 129, or 135 of
this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with operations
specifications authorizing the use of EFVS.
(xi) A person conducting operations under part 125 of this chapter
must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications
authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a holder of a part 125 letter of
deviation authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS.
(xii) A person conducting an EFVS operation during an authorized
Category II or Category III operation must conduct the operation in
accordance with operations specifications, management specifications,
or a letter of authorization authorizing EFVS operations during
authorized Category II or Category III operations.
(3) Visibility and visual reference requirements. No pilot
operating under this section or Sec. Sec. 121.651, 125.381, or 135.225
of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and
land unless:
(i) The pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility
observed by use of an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed
in the instrument approach procedure being used.
(ii) From the authorized DA/DH to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation of the runway of intended landing, any approach light system
or both the runway threshold and the touchdown zone are distinctly
visible and identifiable to the pilot using an EFVS.
(A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one
of the following visual references--
(1) The beginning of the runway landing surface;
(2) The threshold lights; or
(3) The runway end identifier lights.
(B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one
of the following visual references--
(1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;
(2) The touchdown zone lights;
(3) The touchdown zone markings; or
(4) The runway lights.
(iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway
of intended landing and below that

[[Page 90174]]

altitude, the enhanced flight visibility using EFVS must be sufficient
for one of the following visual references to be distinctly visible and
identifiable to the pilot--
(A) The runway threshold;
(B) The lights or markings of the threshold;
(C) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; or
(D) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone.
(4) Additional requirements. The Administrator may prescribe
additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference
requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics,
operational procedures, or approach characteristics. These requirements
will be specified in an operator's operations specifications,
management specifications, or letter of authorization authorizing the
use of EFVS.
(b) EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.
Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
conduct an EFVS operation in an aircraft, except a military aircraft of
the United States, at any airport below the authorized DA/DH or MDA to
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation unless the following
requirements are met:
(1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be equipped with an operable
EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements.
(ii) The EFVS must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A)
through (F) of this section, but need not present flare prompt, flare
guidance, or height above ground level.
(2) Operations. (i) The pilot conducting the EFVS operation may not
use circling minimums.
(ii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must have adequate
knowledge of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the
procedures to be used.
(iii) The aircraft must be equipped with, and the pilot flying must
use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(iv) The aircraft must continuously be in a position from which a
descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal
rate of descent using normal maneuvers.
(v) For operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this
chapter, the descent rate must allow touchdown to occur within the
touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing.
(vi) Each required pilot flightcrew member must meet the following
requirements--
(A) A person exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate
issued under this chapter, any person serving as a required pilot
flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person serving
as a required pilot flightcrew member for a part 121, 125, or 135
operator, must be qualified in accordance with part 61 and, as
applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of
subpart K of this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter that
apply to the operation; or
(B) Each person acting as a required pilot flightcrew member for a
foreign air carrier subject to part 129, or any person serving as a
required pilot flightcrew member of a foreign registered aircraft, must
be qualified in accordance with the training requirements of the civil
aviation authority of the State of the operator for the EFVS operation
to be conducted.
(vii) A person conducting operations under subpart K of this part
must conduct the operation in accordance with management specifications
authorizing the use of EFVS.
(viii) A person conducting operations under part 121, 129, or 135
of this chapter must conduct the operation in accordance with
operations specifications authorizing the use of EFVS.
(ix) A person conducting operations under part 125 of this chapter
must conduct the operation in accordance with operations specifications
authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a holder of a part 125 letter of
deviation authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS.
(x) A person conducting an EFVS operation during an authorized
Category II or Category III operation must conduct the operation in
accordance with operations specifications, management specifications,
or a letter of authorization authorizing EFVS operations during
authorized Category II or Category III operations.
(3) Visibility and Visual Reference Requirements. No pilot
operating under this section or Sec. 121.651, Sec. 125.381, or Sec.
135.225 of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized
MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and land unless:
(i) The pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility
observed by use of an EFVS is not less than the visibility prescribed
in the instrument approach procedure being used.
(ii) From the authorized MDA or DA/DH to 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing, any
approach light system or both the runway threshold and the touchdown
zone are distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot using an
EFVS.
(A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one
of the following visual references-
(1) The beginning of the runway landing surface;
(2) The threshold lights; or
(3) The runway end identifier lights.
(B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one
of the following visual references--
(1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;
(2) The touchdown zone lights;
(3) The touchdown zone markings; or
(4) The runway lights.
(iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway
of intended landing and below that altitude, the flight visibility must
be sufficient for--
(A) The runway threshold;
(B) The lights or markings of the threshold;
(C) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; or
(D) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone.
(4) Compliance Date. Beginning on March 13, 2018, a person
conducting an EFVS operation to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section.
(c) Public aircraft certification and training requirements. A
public aircraft operator, other than the U.S. military, may conduct an
EFVS operation under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section only if:
(1) The aircraft meets all of the civil certification and
airworthiness requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this
section, as applicable to the EFVS operation to be conducted; and
(2) The pilot flightcrew member, or any other person who
manipulates the controls of an aircraft during an EFVS operation, meets
the training, recent flight experience and refresher training
requirements of Sec. 61.66 of this chapter applicable to EFVS
operations.
(d) Exception for Experimental Aircraft. The requirement to use an
EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section does not apply to operations conducted in an aircraft issued an
experimental certificate under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter for the
purpose of research and development or showing compliance with
regulations, provided the Administrator has determined that the
operations can be conducted safely in accordance with operating
limitations issued for that purpose.

[[Page 90175]]

0
20. Amend Sec. 91.189 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text and
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.189 Category II and III operations: General operating rules.

* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 91.176 of this part or unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no pilot operating an
aircraft in a Category II or Category III approach that provides and
requires the use of a DA/DH may continue the approach below the
authorized decision height unless the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 91.176 of this part or unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, each pilot operating an
aircraft shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach
whenever, prior to touchdown, the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section are not met.
* * * * *

0
21. Amend Sec. 91.905 by adding an entry for Sec. 91.176 in numerical
order to read as follows:

Sec. 91.905 List of rules subject to waivers.

Sec.
* * * * *
91.176 Operations below DA/DH or MDA using an enhanced flight vision
system (EFVS) under IFR.
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec. 91.1039 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 91.175(l) or 91.176 of this
chapter, each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at an
airport must comply with applicable instrument approach procedures and
takeoff and landing weather minimums prescribed by the authority having
jurisdiction over the airport. In addition, no pilot may take off at
that airport when the visibility is less than 600 feet, unless
otherwise authorized in the program manager's management specifications
for EFVS operations.

0
23. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 91.1039 by revising paragraph
(e) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, each pilot
making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at an airport must comply
with applicable instrument approach procedures and takeoff and landing
weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over
the airport. In addition, no pilot may take off at that airport when
the visibility is less than 600 feet, unless otherwise authorized in
the program manager's management specifications for EFVS operations.

0
24. Amend Sec. 91.1065 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.1065 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

* * * * *
(g) If the program manager is authorized to conduct EFVS
operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) of this section must
include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder
is authorized to conduct.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
25. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706,
44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722,
44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701
note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

0
26. Amend Sec. 121.651 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(c) introductory text, and (d) introductory text, redesignating
paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (f) and (g), and adding new
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR: All
certificate holders.

* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,
no pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where
a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of
an instrument approach procedure--
(c) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an
instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating
below-minimum conditions, may continue the approach to DA/DH or MDA.
Upon reaching DA/DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed
approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DA/DH or MDA
if either the requirements of Sec. 91.175(l) or Sec. 91.176 of this
chapter, or the following requirements are met:
* * * * *
(d) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument
approach procedure other than a Category II or Category III procedure
at an airport when the visibility is less than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure if the airport is served by an operative
ILS and an operative PAR, and both are used by the pilot. However, no
pilot may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless the
requirements of Sec. 91.175(l) or Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, or the
following requirements are met:
* * * * *
(e) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument
approach procedure, or continue that approach procedure, at an airport
when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure if the pilot uses an operable EFVS in
accordance with Sec. 91.176 of this chapter and the certificate
holder's operations specifications for EFVS operations.
* * * * *

0
27. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 121.651 by revising
paragraphs (c) introductory text and (d) introductory text to read as
follows:

Sec. 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR: All
certificate holders.

* * * * *
(c) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an
instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating
below-minimum conditions, may continue the approach to DA/DH or MDA.
Upon reaching DA/DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed
approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DA/DH or MDA
if either the requirements of Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, or the
following requirements are met:
* * * * *
(d) A pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument
approach procedure other than a Category II or Category III procedure
at an airport when the visibility is less than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure if the airport is served by an operative
ILS and an operative PAR, and both are used by the pilot. However, no
pilot may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless the
requirements of Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, or the following
requirements are met:
* * * * *

0
28. In appendix F to part 121, amend the Table by adding new entries
III(c)(5), V(g), and V(h) to read as follows:

[[Page 90176]]

Appendix F to Part 121--Proficiency Check Requirements

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Permitted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver
Maneuvers/procedures Simulated Visual Nonvisual Training provisions
instrument Inflight simulator simulator device of Sec.
conditions 121.441(d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Instrument procedures:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
(c) ILS and other instrument
approaches. There must be the
following:

* * * * * * *
(5) For each type of EFVS B * B ........... ........... ........... ............
operation the certificate
holder is authorized to
conduct, at least one
instrument approach must
be made using an EFVS.....

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Landings and Approaches to Landings--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
(g) If the certificate holder B * B
is authorized to conduct EFVS
operations to touchdown and
rollout, at least one
instrument approach to a
landing must be made using an
EFVS, including the use of
enhanced flight vision from
100 feet above the touchdown
zone elevation to touchdown
and rollout...................
(h) If the certificate holder B * B
is authorized to conduct EFVS
operations to 100 feet above
the touchdown zone elevation,
at least one instrument
approach to a landing must be
made using an EFVS, including
the transition from enhanced
flight vision to natural
vision at 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation......

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
29. In appendix H to part 121, amend ``Level B Training and Checking
Permitted'' by revising paragraph 3. to read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation

* * * * *

Level B

Training and Checking Permitted

* * * * *
3. Except for EFVS operations, landings in a proficiency check
without the landing on the line requirements (Sec. 121.441).
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT

0
30. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44710-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

0
31. Amend Sec. 125.287 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 125.287 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

* * * * *
(g) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS
operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) of this section must
include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder
is authorized to conduct.

0
32. Revise Sec. 125.325 to read as follows:

Sec. 125.325 Instrument approach procedures and IFR landing
minimums.

Except as specified in Sec. Sec. 91.175(l) or 91.176 of this
chapter, no person may make an instrument approach at an airport except
in accordance with IFR weather minimums and unless the type of
instrument approach procedure to be used is listed in the certificate
holder's operations specifications.

0
33. Effective March 13, 2018, revise Sec. 125.325 to read as follows:

Sec. 125.325 Instrument approach procedures and IFR landing
minimums.

Except as specified in Sec. 91.176 of this chapter, no person may
make an

[[Page 90177]]

instrument approach at an airport except in accordance with IFR weather
minimums and unless the type of instrument approach procedure to be
used is listed in the certificate holder's operations specifications.

0
34. Amend Sec. 125.381 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c)
introductory text, and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR.

(a) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
land an airplane under IFR.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
no pilot may execute an instrument approach procedure if the latest
reported visibility is less than the landing minimums specified in the
certificate holder's operations specifications.
(c) A pilot who initiates an instrument approach procedure based on
a weather report that indicates that the specified visibility minimums
exist and subsequently receives another weather report that indicates
that conditions are below the minimum requirements, may continue the
approach only if the requirements of Sec. 91.175(l) or Sec. 91.176 of
this chapter, or both of the following conditions are met--
* * * * *
(d) A pilot may execute an instrument approach procedure, or
continue the approach, at an airport when the visibility is reported to
be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if
the pilot uses an operable EFVS in accordance with Sec. 91.176 of this
chapter and the certificate holder's operations specifications for EFVS
operations, or for a holder of a part 125 letter of deviation
authority, a letter of authorization for the use of EFVS.

0
35. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 125.381 by revising paragraph
(c) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather minimums: IFR.

* * * * *
(c) A pilot who initiates an instrument approach procedure based on
a weather report that indicates that the specified visibility minimums
exist and subsequently receives another weather report that indicates
that conditions are below the minimum requirements, may continue the
approach only if either the requirements of Sec. 91.176 of this
chapter, or the following conditions are met--
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
36. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105;
Public Law 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).

0
37. Amend Sec. 135.225 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text;
0
b. Remove paragraph (d);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and revise it;
0
d. Add new paragraph (c); and
0
e. Add paragraph (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

(a) Except to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (j) of
this section, no pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an
airport unless--
(b) A pilot conducting an eligible on-demand operation may begin
and conduct an instrument approach procedure to an airport that does
not have a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National
Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather
Service, or a source approved by the Administrator if--
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, no pilot
may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure to an airport unless the latest weather reported by the
facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section indicates that
weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums
for that procedure.
(d) A pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an
instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (c) of this section,
and receives a later weather report indicating that conditions have
worsened to below the minimum requirements, may continue the approach
only if the requirements of Sec. 91.175(l) of this chapter, paragraph
(j) of this section, or both of the following conditions are met--
(1) The later weather report is received when the aircraft is in
one of the following approach phases:
(i) The aircraft is on an ILS final approach and has passed the
final approach fix;
(ii) The aircraft is on an ASR or PAR final approach and has been
turned over to the final approach controller; or
(iii) The aircraft is on a non-precision final approach and the
aircraft--
(A) Has passed the appropriate facility or final approach fix; or
(B) Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the
procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the
final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure;
and
(2) The pilot in command finds, on reaching the authorized MDA or
DA/DH, that the actual weather conditions are at or above the minimums
prescribed for the procedure being used.
* * * * *
(j) A pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure, or continue
an approach, at an airport when the visibility is reported to be less
than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure if the pilot
uses an operable EFVS in accordance with Sec. 91.176 of this chapter
and the certificate holder's operations specifications for EFVS
operations.

0
38. Effective March 13, 2018, amend Sec. 135.225 by revising paragraph
(d) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, a pilot
who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to
an airport under paragraph (c) of this section, and receives a later
weather report indicating that conditions have worsened to below the
minimum requirements, may continue the approach only if the following
conditions are met--
* * * * *

0
39. Amend Sec. 135.293 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 135.293 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

* * * * *
(i) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct EFVS
operations, the competency check in paragraph (b) of this section must
include tasks appropriate to the EFVS operations the certificate holder
is authorized to conduct.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and
44703 in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2016.

Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-28714 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.