[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34935-34958]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13454]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

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; Notice No. 1209]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to permit operators to use an Enhanced
Flight Vision System (EFVS) in lieu of natural vision to continue
descending from 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation to the
runway and land on certain straight-in instrument approach procedures
under instrument flight rules (IFR). This proposal would also permit
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 is below authorized visibility minimums for
the runway of intended landing. Under this proposal, pilot training,
recent flight experience, and proficiency would be required for
operators who use EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend below
decision altitude, decision height, or minimum descent altitude. EFVS-
equipped aircraft conducting operations to touchdown and rollout would
be required to meet additional airworthiness requirements. This
proposal would also revise pilot compartment view certification
requirements for vision systems using a transparent display surface
located in the pilot's outside view. The proposal would take advantage
of advanced vision capabilities thereby achieving the NextGen goals of
increasing access, efficiency, and throughput at many airports when low
visibility is the limiting factor. Additionally, it would enable EFVS
operations in reduced visibilities on a greater number of approach
procedure types while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0485
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 USC 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this proposed rule contact Paul G.
Greer, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-200,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains related information about the docket and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 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

AEG Aircraft Evaluation Group
ASR Airport surveillance radar
CAA Civil aviation authority
DA Decision altitude
DH Decision height
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision System
FAF Final approach fix
FSB Flight Standardization Board
FPARC Flight path angle reference cue
FPV Flight path vector
HUD Head up display
IAP Instrument approach procedure
ILS Instrument landing system
IFR Instrument flight rules
IR Infrared
LOA Letter of authorization
LODA Letter of deviation authority
MASPS Minimum aviation system performance standards

MDA Minimum descent altitude
MSpec Management specification
NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System
NOTAM Notice to airmen
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
OpSpec Operation specification
PAR Precision approach radar
PIC Pilot in Command
RVR Runway visual range
VFR Visual flight rules

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Rule
II. Background
    A. History
    B. Statement of the Problem
    C. Related Actions
III. Discussion of the Proposal
    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. Establish equipment, operating, and visual reference
requirements for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout (Sec.
91.176(a))
    D. Revise current requirements for EFVS operations to 100 feet
(Sec.  91.176(b))
    E. Establish training requirements for persons conducting EFVS
operations (Sec.  61.31)
    F. Establish new recent flight experience and proficiency
requirements for persons conducting EFVS operations (Sec.  61.57)
    G. Permit EFVS-equipped aircraft to be dispatched, released, or
to initiate a flight when the reported or forecast visibility at the
destination airport is below authorized minimums (Sec. Sec.
121.613, 121.615, 125.361, 125.363, 135.219)
    H. Permit operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft to initiate or
continue an approach when the destination airport visibility is
below authorized minimums (Sec. Sec.  121.651, 125.325, 125.381,
135.225)
    I. Revise Category II and III general operating rules to permit
the use of an EFVS (Sec.  91.189)
    J. Revise pilot compartment view rules to establish
airworthiness standards for vision systems with transparent displays
located in the pilot's outside view (Sec. Sec.  23.773, 25.773,
27.773, and 29.773)
    K. Related Amendments (Sec. Sec.  91.175, 91.189, and 91.905)
    L. Conforming Amendments (Sec. Sec.  91.175 and 91.189)
    M. Implementation
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
    G. Environmental Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. Additional Information
    A. Comments Invited
    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
VII. The Proposed Amendment

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    Regulations pertaining to EFVS can be found in Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 1.1, 91.175(l) and (m), 121.651(c) and
(d), 125.381(c), and 135.225(c). Section 91.175(l) authorizes the use
of EFVS to determine that the enhanced flight visibility is at least
the minimum prescribed for the approach being flown, and to identify
the visual references that must be observed in order to descend below
decision altitude/decision height (DA/DH) or minimum descent altitude
(MDA) to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation. Natural vision
must be used below 100 feet. Sections 121.651(c), 125.325, 125.381(c),
and 135.225(c) place additional limitations on air carriers and
commercial operators using EFVS.
    Under current regulations, an EFVS can be used in lieu of natural
vision to descend below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above touchdown
zone elevation on certain instrument approach procedures, provided
specific regulatory conditions are met. When the destination airport
weather is forecast or reported to be below authorized minimums at the
estimated time of arrival, persons conducting operations under parts
121, 125, and 135 have certain dispatch, flight release, and IFR
takeoff limitations as well as limitations related to initiating an
approach, continuing an approach beyond the final approach fix (FAF),
or beginning the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure. The FAA proposes to revise the regulations to specify
additional conditions under which an aircraft equipped with EFVS can be
dispatched, released, or permitted to take off. It would also specify
the conditions under which an operator of an EFVS-equipped aircraft may
begin an approach when the weather is reported to be below authorized
minimums. Additionally, it would permit an EFVS to be used to continue
descent below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation when the
required visual references can be observed using the EFVS.
    Currently, part 61 does not contain any training or recent flight
experience requirements to conduct EFVS operations. To ensure that an
appropriate level of safety is maintained for all EFVS operations, the
FAA proposes to amend part 61 to require initial training as well as
new recent flight experience and proficiency requirements for persons
conducting EFVS operations.
    Current regulations also specify that no pilot operating an
aircraft on a Category II or Category III approach that requires the
use of a DA/DH may continue the approach below the authorized decision
height using an EFVS in lieu of natural vision. The FAA also proposes
to amend the regulations to permit an EFVS to be used during Category
II and Category III approaches.
    Additionally, the FAA uses special conditions issued under Sec.
21.16 to approve vision systems in type certificated aircraft. The FAA
proposes to eliminate the need to issue special conditions for these
systems by revising the pilot compartment view certification
requirements in the airworthiness standards found in parts 23, 25, 27,
and 29.
    Following is a detailed overview of the proposed amendments:
     Section 1.1 would be amended to better define the
components of an EFVS and to define the term ``EFVS operation.''
     Sections 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 would be
amended to establish certification requirements for vision systems with
a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside view.
     Section 61.31 would be amended to require training for
EFVS operations.
     Section 61.57 would be amended to 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.
     Sections 91.175 (l) and (m), which contain the existing
EFVS regulations, would be redesignated as proposed Sec.  91.176. The
FAA proposes to place all EFVS regulations contained in part 91, except
those pertaining to Category II and III operations, in a single new
section for organizational and regulatory clarity.
     Section 91.189 would be amended to permit an EFVS to be
used to identify the visual references required to continue an approach
below the authorized decision height during Category II and Category
III approaches.
     Section 91.905 would be amended to add Sec.  91.176 to the
list of rules subject to waiver.
     Sections 121.613 and 121.615 would be amended to expand
the conditions under which an EFVS can be used to dispatch or flight
release an aircraft when the visibility is forecast or reported to be
below authorized minimums for a destination airport.
     Section 121.651 would be amended to permit the pilot of an
EFVS-equipped

aircraft to continue an approach past the FAF or to begin the final
approach segment of an instrument approach procedure when the weather
is reported to be below authorized visibility minimums. Section 121.651
would also be amended to permit EFVS-equipped part 121 operators to
conduct EFVS operations in accordance with proposed Sec.  91.176 and
their operations specifications issued for EFVS operations.
     Sections 125.361 and 125.363 would be amended to permit
flight release for EFVS-equipped aircraft when weather reports or
forecasts indicate that arrival weather conditions at the destination
airport will be below authorized minimums.
     Sections 125.325 and 125.381 would be amended to permit
the pilot of an EFVS-equipped aircraft to execute an instrument
approach procedure when the weather is reported to be below authorized
visibility minimums. Section 125.381 would also be amended to permit
EFVS-equipped part 125 operators to conduct EFVS operations in
accordance with proposed Sec.  91.176 and their operations
specifications.
     Section 135.219 would be amended to permit flights to be
initiated for EFVS-equipped aircraft when weather reports or forecasts
indicate that arrival weather conditions at the destination airport
will be below authorized minimums.
     Section 135.225 would be amended to permit the pilot of an
EFVS-equipped aircraft to initiate an instrument approach procedure
when the reported visibility is below the authorized visibility
minimums for the approach. Section 135.225 would also be amended to
permit EFVS-equipped part 135 operators to conduct EFVS operations in
accordance with proposed Sec.  91.176 and their operations
specifications issued for EFVS operations.
     Additional amendments would be made to conform to the
proposed regulatory changes.
    Each of these proposed amendments is discussed in detail in the
sections that follow. The FAA has attempted to use regulatory language
that is performance-based and not limited to a specific sensor
technology. The FAA believes this action would accommodate future
growth in real-time sensor technologies used in most enhanced vision
systems. The proposal would maximize the benefits of rapidly evolving
instrument approach procedures and advanced flight deck technology to
increase access and capacity during low visibility operations. The
proposal is consistent with the agency's Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) goals and operational improvements. An
operator's decision to equip with EFVS is voluntary; however, the
operator would be required to conduct EFVS operations in accordance
with this proposal.
    EFVS-equipped aircraft conducting operations to touchdown and
rollout would be required to meet additional airworthiness
requirements. Only enhanced flight vision systems that utilize a real-
time image of the external scene topography would be addressed by the
operational requirements proposed in this notice. Synthetic vision
systems, which use 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, would not be
addressed by the operating requirements set forth in this proposal.
Synthetic vision systems with a transparent display surface located in
the pilot's outside view, however, would be subject to the
airworthiness standards in proposed Sec. Sec.  23.773, 25.773, 27.773,
and 29.773 as applicable.
    This proposal also does not address EFVS use for takeoff. Section
91.175(f) prescribes civil airport takeoff minimums which are
applicable to persons conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 129,
or 135. This section makes provision for the Administrator to authorize
takeoff minimums other than the minimums prescribed in Sec.  91.175(f).
Therefore, no regulatory amendments are proposed to enable EFVS to be
used for takeoff because these operations can be authorized through
existing processes.

II. Background

A. History

    An EFVS uses a head-up display (HUD) to provide flight information,
navigation guidance, and a real-time image of the external scene to the
pilot on one display. The real-time image of the outside scene is
produced by imaging sensors, which may be based on forward looking
infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, millimeter wave radar, low level
light intensification, or other imaging technologies. In certain
reduced visibility conditions, an EFVS can enable a pilot to see the
approach lights, visual references associated with the runway
environment, and other objects or features that might not be visible
without the use of an EFVS. Combining the flight information,
navigation guidance, and sensor imagery on a HUD allows the pilot to
remain head up and to continue looking forward along the flight path
throughout the entire approach, landing, and rollout.
    The requirements for operating below DA/DH or MDA under IFR on
instrument approaches are contained in Sec.  91.175. Over the years,
these requirements have been modified to enable aircraft operations
during reduced visibility conditions while maintaining a high level of
safety. For many years, descent below DA/DH or MDA could only be
accomplished using natural vision. On January 9, 2004, a final rule,
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, was published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 1620) to permit an EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision to
continue descent below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing. At and
below 100 feet, however, the lights or markings of the threshold or the
lights or markings of the touchdown zone had to be distinctly visible
and identifiable to the pilot using natural vision. A pilot could not
continue descent below 100 feet by relying solely on the EFVS sensor
imagery.
    The 2004 final rule permitted an EFVS to be used in this way under
IFR only on straight-in instrument approach procedures other than
Category II or III, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The
FAA asserted in the final rule that permitting EFVS to be used in this
way could allow for operational benefits, reduced costs, and increased
safety. Using a HUD assists a pilot in flying a more precise flight
path. The FAA asserted that an EFVS, which includes a real-time sensor
image on a HUD, might also improve the level of safety by improving
position awareness, providing visual cues to maintain a stabilized
approach, and reducing missed approaches. An EFVS could also enable a
pilot to detect an obstruction on the runway, such as an aircraft or
vehicle, earlier in the approach, and detect runway incursions in
reduced visibility conditions. Even in situations where the pilot has
sufficient flight visibility at the DA/DH or MDA to see the required
visual references using natural vision, an EFVS could be used to
achieve better situation awareness than might be possible without it--
especially in marginal visibility conditions.
    The 2004 final rule also established equipment requirements for
EFVS operations. Enhanced flight vision systems used to conduct
operations under the provisions of Sec. Sec.  91.175(l) and (m),
121.651(c) and (d), 125.381(c), and 135.225(c) using U.S.-registered
aircraft

are required to have an FAA type design approval (e.g., type
certificate, amended type certificate, or supplemental type
certificate). Requiring a type design approval ensures that the EFVS
equipment is appropriate to support the EFVS operations to be
conducted. These approvals are currently achieved through the issuance
of special conditions. Foreign-registered aircraft used to conduct EFVS
operations in the U.S. that do not have an FAA type design approval
must be equipped with an operable EFVS that otherwise meets the
requirements of the U.S. regulations. Additional information regarding
compliance with EFVS operating requirements can be found in Advisory
Circular (AC) 90-106, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems. Additional
information about compliance with the airworthiness or equipment
requirements for EFVS can be found in AC 20-167, Airworthiness Approval
of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision
System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment.

B. Statement of the Problem

    The FAA believes EFVS capabilities could be better leveraged by
making provisions for current and future performance-based enhanced
vision capabilities that would increase access, efficiency, and
throughput at many airports when low visibility is a factor. The 2004
final rule permitted enhanced flight visibility (determined using EFVS)
to be used in lieu of flight visibility (determined by natural vision)
to descend below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation of the runway of intended landing. The rule, however, did not
address dispatching a flight under part 121, releasing a flight under
part 125, or taking off under part 135. An aircraft operated under
those parts cannot be dispatched, released, or permitted to take off
under IFR when the weather at the destination airport is forecast or
reported to be below authorized minimums at the estimated time of
arrival. Additionally, the pilot of an aircraft operating under these
parts may not begin an approach or continue an approach past the FAF
(or where a FAF is not used, begin the final approach segment of an
instrument approach procedure) when the weather at the destination
airport is reported to be below authorized minimums. These restrictions
prevent EFVS from being used for maximum operational benefit by persons
conducting operations under parts 121, 125, or 135. This proposal would
provide relief from these restrictions for operators of EFVS-equipped
aircraft.
    Under current regulations, the enhanced flight visibility provided
by an EFVS can only be used for operational benefit under Sec.
91.175(l) in that portion of the visual segment of an approach that
extends from DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation. While this provision has provided operators with significant
benefits, additional capability could be achieved by permitting EFVS to
be used to touchdown and rollout. This would increase access and
throughput over existing EFVS operations by removing the requirement to
transition to natural vision at 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation.
    There are currently no 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
persons conducting EFVS operations has significantly expanded. The FAA
believes the proposal would further increase the number of operators
conducting EFVS operations. Additionally, it would permit those
operations to be conducted in low visibility conditions to touchdown
and rollout. The FAA therefore proposes to establish training, recent
flight experience, and proficiency requirements for EFVS operations to
provide an appropriate level of safety for the conduct of those
operations.
    The FAA also believes that an EFVS can provide operational and
safety benefits during Category II and Category III operations,
especially as more advanced imaging sensor capabilities are developed
which function more effectively in lower visibility conditions. The
proposal would therefore amend the operating rules for Category II and
III operations to permit EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision
during the conduct of those operations.
    Finally, there are no airworthiness standards that specifically
address the certification of vision systems, to include EFVS.
Accordingly, the FAA has certificated vision systems using special
conditions which can impose significant delays on the certification
process. The proposal would therefore also amend parts 23, 25, 27, and
29 to establish certification requirements for vision systems with a
transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside view thereby
eliminating the need for the issuance of special conditions.

C. Related Actions

    The FAA is revising 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 include the provisions proposed in this NPRM. A
Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register when
these draft ACs have been completed, and copies of these draft ACs will
be placed in the docket for public comment at that time.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

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

    The FAA proposes to amend the definition of EFVS in Sec.  1.1 to
more precisely describe an EFVS. The proposed amendment specifies that
an EFVS is an installed aircraft system and revises the current
definition to include language that describes the elements and features
of an EFVS currently found in Sec.  91.175(m). The current definition
of EFVS would be revised to include the phrase ``the EFVS includes the
display element, sensors, computers and power supplies, indications,
and controls.'' This phrase is currently found in Sec.  91.175(m)(3).
The FAA also proposes to change the phrase ``installed airborne
system'' to ``installed aircraft system'' because some EFVS operations
may be conducted on the surface as well as in an airborne context.
    The proposed definition for EFVS would state: ``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 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. The EFVS sensor imagery and required
aircraft flight information and flight symbology is displayed on a
head-up display, or an equivalent display, so that the imagery and
symbology is clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her normal
position with the line of vision looking forward along the flight path.
An EFVS includes the display element, sensors, computers and power
supplies, indications, and controls.''
    The FAA also proposes to add a definition to Sec.  1.1 for EFVS
operation. An EFVS operation would be defined as ``an operation in
which an EFVS is

required to be used to perform an approach or landing, determine
enhanced flight visibility (as defined in current Sec.  1.1), identify
required visual references, or conduct the rollout.'' This definition
establishes the conditions under which an EFVS would be required to
conduct specific operations. The FAA notes that while an EFVS can
provide situation awareness in any phase of flight, such use would not
constitute an EFVS operation unless an EFVS is required in lieu of
natural vision to perform any visual task associated with approach,
landing, and rollout.

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

    The FAA proposes to create new Sec.  91.176 which would contain the
regulations for enhanced flight vision systems. The FAA believes that
the extent of current and proposed EFVS provisions requires a new
section for organizational and regulatory clarity. The existing
regulations for EFVS to 100 feet that are located in current Sec. Sec.
91.175(l) and (m) would be moved to proposed Sec.  91.176 and
restructured. Proposed Sec. Sec.  91.176(a) and (b) would each be
organized into three main areas--equipment requirements, operating
requirements, and visibility and visual reference requirements. Section
91.176(a) would contain the new regulations for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout, and Sec.  91.176(b) would contain the existing
regulations for EFVS operations that are conducted to 100 feet above
the touchdown zone elevation.

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

    Under the current EFVS rule, an EFVS can be used to descend below
DA/DH or MDA on any instrument approach procedure, other than Category
II or III, that is straight-in and that uses published straight-in
minima. The existing regulations permit an EFVS to be used to identify
the visual references required by Sec.  91.175(l)(3) and to determine
that the enhanced flight visibility provided by the EFVS is not less
than the visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure
(IAP) being flown. Both of these requirements have to be met before
descending below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation. Additionally, the regulations require that the aircraft be
continuously 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, for operations conducted under parts 121 or 135, the
descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of
the runway of intended landing.
    At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation and below, the
current regulations require that the flight visibility must be
sufficient for the lights or markings of the threshold or the lights or
markings of the touchdown zone to be distinctly visible and
identifiable to the pilot without reliance on the EFVS in order to
continue to a landing. In other words, descent below 100 feet has to be
accomplished using natural vision--a pilot cannot continue descending
below 100 feet by relying solely on the EFVS sensor imagery under the
current rule.
    The FAA proposes to permit enhanced vision provided by an EFVS to
be used in lieu of natural vision to descend below 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation. The FAA believes the current visual
references that need to be seen using natural vision to descend below
100 feet should serve as the basis for establishing the visual
references necessary to be seen with enhanced vision to descend below
100 feet when conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout.
Those visual references consist of lights or markings of the threshold
or lights or markings of the touchdown zone. Additionally, the FAA
proposes to add the runway threshold and the runway touchdown zone
landing surface as references a pilot could use to descend below 100
feet. The FAA believes these additions are necessary to include other
visual references that could be displayed by the EFVS and used by the
pilot to safely land the aircraft.
    Additionally, in Sec.  91.176(a) the FAA would require that the
aircraft be continuously in a position from which a descent to a
landing on the intended runway could be made at a normal rate of
descent using normal maneuvers. This proposed requirement is identical
to the current requirement that exists for EFVS operations to 100 feet
above the touchdown zone elevation. The proposal would also require
that for all operators, the descent rate would allow touchdown to occur
within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing. Currently
only persons conducting operations under parts 121 or 135 are required
to touchdown within the touchdown zone. For EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout, the FAA considers it prudent to require
touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone for all operators in order
to minimize any potential for a runway overrun in low visibility
conditions.
    The FAA proposes to permit an EFVS operation to be conducted below
the authorized DA/DH to touchdown and rollout using a straight-in
precision instrument approach procedure or an approach with approved
vertical guidance. In order to ensure obstacle clearance and stabilized
approach to touchdown, the approach must have published straight-in
minima, a published vertical path, and a published DA or DH.
Accordingly, EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout would not be
permitted on nonprecision approaches.
    In proposed Sec.  91.176(a)(2)(i), the FAA would require each
required pilot flight crewmember to have adequate knowledge of, and
familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the procedures to be
used. Additionally, in proposed Sec.  91.176(a)(2)(ii), the FAA would
require that the aircraft be equipped with, and the pilot flying would
be required to use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment
requirements specified in proposed Sec.  91.176(a)(1). When a minimum
flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, proposed Sec.
91.176(a)(2)(iii) would require the pilot monitoring to use a display
that provides him or her with EFVS sensor imagery.
    Part 61 does not currently contain training, recent flight
experience, and proficiency requirements for EFVS operations. Under the
proposal, however, each required pilot flight crewmember would be
required to meet the applicable training, recent flight experience, and
proficiency requirements proposed in Sec. Sec.  61.31(l) and 61.57(h)
and (i). Persons conducting operations under parts 121, 125, or 135
would continue to be required to meet the current training, testing,
and qualification provisions of those parts. The new proposals for part
61 are discussed in more detail in Sections III-E and III-F of this
proposal. For foreign persons, each required pilot flight crewmember
would have to meet the applicable requirements of the civil aviation
authority of the State of the operator.
    For operational approval to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout, the FAA proposes to require persons conducting operations
under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 to conduct those operations in
accordance with OpSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS. Persons conducting
operations under a part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) would
conduct those operations in accordance with a letter of authorization
(LOA) for EFVS

operations to touchdown and rollout. Part 91, subpart K, operators
would be required to conduct these operations in accordance with their
MSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS. Persons conducting operations under
part 91 (other than those conducted under subpart K) would be required
to conduct them in accordance with their LOA for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout. Section L contains a discussion on how the FAA
plans to manage EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout through
OpSpecs, MSpecs, and LOAs.
    Under the current EFVS rule, an EFVS installed on a U.S.-registered
aircraft conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet must be installed on
that aircraft in accordance with an FAA type design approval (a type
certificate, amended type certificate, or supplemental type
certificate). An EFVS that is currently certified to conduct EFVS
operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation, however, may
not meet the airworthiness standards necessary to support EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout. Therefore, the FAA proposes a
similar certification process for an EFVS installed on an aircraft used
in EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout and would require an FAA
type design approval for these systems.
    The FAA recognizes that a foreign-registered aircraft may not have
an FAA-type design approval. Therefore, the proposal would also permit
use of an EFVS in those aircraft that may not have an FAA-type design
approval provided those aircraft are equipped with an operable EFVS
that otherwise meets the requirements of the U.S. regulations.
    Current Sec.  91.175(m) states that an EFVS presents sensor imagery
and aircraft symbology on a head-up display (HUD) or an equivalent
display, so that they are clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or
her normal position and line of vision looking forward along the flight
path. A head-down display does not meet the regulatory requirement that
the EFVS sensor imagery and aircraft flight symbology be presented so a
pilot can see it while seated in his or her normal position and line of
vision looking forward along the flight path. A head-down display,
therefore, would not be considered an equivalent display.
    Current Sec.  91.175(m) also states that an EFVS includes imaging
sensors, computers and power supplies, indications, and controls. It
must also display the following aircraft flight information and flight
symbology: airspeed, vertical speed, aircraft attitude, heading,
altitude, command guidance as appropriate for the approach to be flown,
path deviation indications, flight path vector, and flight path angle
reference cue. The displayed EFVS imagery, attitude symbology, flight
path vector, flight path angle reference cue, and other cues which are
referenced to the imagery and external scene topography must be aligned
with and scaled to the external view; therefore, they must be
conformal. The flight path angle reference cue must also be displayed
with the pitch scale, and the pilot must be able to select the
appropriate descent angle for the approach. The EFVS sensor imagery and
aircraft flight symbology must be displayed such that they do not
obscure the pilot's outside view or field of view through the cockpit
window. Finally, the display characteristics and dynamics must be
suitable for manual control of the aircraft.
    The FAA proposes to apply all of the equipment requirements of the
current EFVS regulations found in Sec.  91.175(m) to EFVS operations
conducted to touchdown and rollout. The FAA would also require the EFVS
to display height above ground level such as that provided by a radio
altimeter or another device capable of providing equivalent
performance. While EFVS-specific callouts are usually based upon
barometric altitude, the FAA believes that the supplementary
information provided by a radio altimeter would provide pilots with
additional altitude information and assist those pilots with performing
the flare and landing during EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout.
The FAA believes this requirement is necessary to support altitude
awareness during EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout.
    The FAA also proposes to require a flare prompt or flare guidance,
as appropriate, for achieving acceptable touchdown performance. Each
applicant for type design approval would be required to demonstrate
acceptable touchdown performance for their particular EFVS
implementation using either flare prompt or flare guidance. The FAA
believes this requirement is necessary to provide the pilot with
additional information to conduct the flare maneuver during conditions
of low visibility typically encountered during EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout.
    When a minimum flightcrew of more than one pilot is required, the
FAA proposes to require that the aircraft be equipped with a display
that provides the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor imagery. Under the
FAA's proposal, this display must be located within the maximum primary
field of view of the pilot monitoring and any symbology displayed must
not adversely obscure the sensor imagery of the runway environment. The
proposal also makes provision for dual EFVS installations, head mounted
displays, and other head up presentations the FAA might find
acceptable. While many EFVS-equipped aircraft provide a display of the
sensor imagery to the pilot monitoring, U.S. regulations do not require
that such a display be provided to the pilot monitoring for EFVS
operations to 100 feet. For these operations, the FAA considers it
sufficient to conduct the operation using EFVS-specific procedures and
callouts to support crew coordination and common situation awareness.
At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation, both pilots are relying
on natural vision to identify the required visual references. During
EFVS operations where the pilot flying relies on EFVS from DA/DH
through touchdown and rollout, it cannot be assumed that the monitoring
pilot sees anything of the outside environment using natural vision.
Therefore, the FAA proposes to require that the aircraft be equipped
with a display that provides the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor
imagery. This display would support the monitoring pilot's view of the
outside environment and provide common situation awareness. The pilot
monitoring would carry out his or her normal approach monitoring tasks
and be required to use the display to monitor and assess the safe
conduct of the approach, landing, and rollout. This would confirm that
the required visual references are acquired, verify visual acquisition
of and alignment with the runway of intended landing, and assist in
determining that the runway is clear of aircraft, vehicles, or other
obstructions.
    For certain future EFVS operations, proposed Sec.  91.176(a)(1)(ii)
specifies that the Administrator may require the display of the EFVS
sensor imagery, required aircraft flight information, and flight
symbology to be provided to the pilot monitoring on a head-up display
or other equivalent display appropriate to the operation being
conducted. This provision is being made to provide the FAA with a means
to respond to future advancements in sensor or display technology.

D. Revise Current Requirements for EFVS Operations to 100 feet (Sec.
91.176(b))

    As stated in Section III-B, the FAA proposes to move the current
requirements for EFVS operations to 100 feet from Sec.  91.175(l) and
(m) to proposed Sec.  91.176(b) and restructure them to accommodate the
regulatory changes set forth in this proposal.

    The FAA proposes to permit EFVS to be used in the conduct of
Category II and Category III operations. Accordingly, the exclusionary
language ``other than Category II or Category III'' would be deleted
from the current provisions of Sec.  91.175(l) that are now found in
proposed Sec.  91.176(b). This change is discussed in more detail in
Section III-I.
    Proposed Sec.  91.176(b)(3)(iii) would be structured to conform to
the original intent of current Sec.  91.175(l)(4) and include
provisions for additional visual reference requirements similar to
those proposed for inclusion in Sec.  91.176(a)(3)(iii) and discussed
in Section III-C. It would clarify that the requirement for the pilot
to determine enhanced flight visibility is only applicable to that
portion of the approach from the authorized DA/DH or MDA to 100 feet
above the touchdown zone elevation. At and below 100 feet, flight
visibility (using natural vision) would be required to be sufficient
for 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 to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot
without reliance on the EFVS.
    The reference to ``standard instrument approach procedure''
currently found in Sec.  91.175(l)(2) would be revised to ``instrument
approach procedure'' when the provisions contained in that paragraph
are included in proposed Sec.  91.176(b)(3)(i). A corresponding
provision would also be included in proposed Sec.  91.176(a)(3)(i).
These changes were made in recognition of the fact that persons
conducting EFVS operations may use either standard or special
instrument approach procedures.
    Currently, there are no training, recent flight experience, or
proficiency requirements in part 61 for persons conducting EFVS
operations. The FAA believes it is necessary to establish training,
recent flight experience, and proficiency requirements to ensure that
pilots possess the skills necessary to operate EFVS equipment, that
they are trained and tested to a standard, and that the training they
receive supports the EFVS operation to be conducted. The FAA's proposal
to add these requirements to part 61 are discussed in Sections III-E
and III-F. Proposed training, recent flight experience, and proficiency
requirements would apply to EFVS operations conducted to touchdown and
rollout and to EFVS operations conducted to 100 feet above the
touchdown zone elevation. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to include
language in proposed Sec.  91.176(b)(2)(v)(A) which would require each
required pilot flight crewmember to meet the new training, recent
flight experience, and proficiency requirements that would be added to
part 61. Additionally, the FAA proposes to add rule language to
proposed Sec.  91.176(b)(2)(i) to require that each required pilot
flight crewmember have adequate knowledge of, and familiarity with, the
aircraft, the EFVS, and the procedures to be used.
    Under current Sec.  91.175(l), a part 119 or part 125 certificate
holder cannot conduct an EFVS operation unless their OpSpecs authorize
the use of EFVS. The same requirement applies to persons conducting
operations under part 129. The proposed amendment would state that for
persons conducting operations under part 91, subpart K, the operation
would be required to be conducted in accordance with MSpecs authorizing
the use of EFVS. For persons conducting operations under parts 121,
129, or 135 of this chapter, the operation would be required to be
conducted in accordance with OpSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS. For
persons conducting operations under part 125 of this chapter, the
operation would be required to be conducted in accordance with OpSpecs
authorizing the use of EFVS, or in the case of a part 125 LODA holder,
an LOA for the use of EFVS. While the FAA proposes to require an LOA
for part 91 operators (other than part 91, subpart K) to conduct EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout, no LOA is currently required or
proposed for EFVS operations conducted to 100 feet.
    Currently, most foreign civil aviation authorities (CAAs) require
an authorization to conduct EFVS operations. As a result, a foreign CAA
may require a U.S. operator who wishes to conduct EFVS operations in
their country to submit their FAA EFVS authorization as a condition for
the foreign CAA's approval. The FAA strongly recommends that operators
contact the CAA of each foreign country in which they plan to conduct
EFVS operations to determine the requirements for approval and for
conducting EFVS operations since those requirements may be different
from those of the United States.
    As previously discussed in Section III-A, the FAA proposes to move
the statement ``The EFVS includes the display element, sensors,
computers and power supplies, indications, and controls.'' currently
contained in Sec.  91.175(m)(3) to the proposed revised definition of
EFVS in Sec.  1.1. The FAA also proposes not to include in the proposal
the sentence ``It may receive inputs from an airborne navigation system
or flight guidance system,'' which is currently contained in Sec.
91.175(m)(3). While this statement provides contextual information, it
is not a stated requirement, and would be more appropriately addressed
in advisory or guidance material. The FAA proposes to remove the phrase
``on approaches without vertical guidance;'' contained in Sec.
91.175(m)(2)(ii) because the flight path angle reference cue is useful
on all approaches.
    Additionally, the FAA would include language in proposed Sec.
91.176(b)(1)(iii), which would clarify that a foreign registered
aircraft need not have an FAA-type design approval provided the
aircraft is equipped with an EFVS that meets all other applicable FAA
requirements.

E. Establish Training Requirements for Persons Conducting EFVS
Operations (Sec.  61.31)

    Currently, part 61, which sets forth training requirements
applicable to all pilots, flight instructors and ground instructors,
does not contain specific training requirements for persons conducting
EFVS operations. However, Sec.  91.175(l) requires that any pilot
conducting an EFVS operation under parts 121, 125, and 135 be qualified
to use an EFVS in accordance with the applicable training, testing, and
qualification provisions of those parts. Additionally, a pilot
conducting EFVS operations must conduct those operations in accordance
with OpSpecs issued to the certificate holder which authorize the use
of EFVS. OpSpecs authorizing the use of EFVS specify training, testing,
and qualification requirements applicable to the use of EFVS.
Furthermore, persons conducting EFVS operations under part 91, subpart
K must conduct those operations in accordance with MSpecs, which set
forth specific training, testing, and qualification requirements
applicable to the use of EFVS.
    Although specific EFVS training requirements do not currently exist
in part 61, both the FAA and EFVS manufacturers have recognized that
pilots conducting EFVS operations need to be appropriately trained. FAA
Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) Flight Standardization Boards (FSBs)
have conducted operational suitability evaluations of EFVS equipment
installed on certain airplanes, which have resulted in FSB reports that
document the training, checking, and currency tasks that should be
accomplished to safely operate this equipment. Certain aircraft

manufacturers have also encouraged flight crewmembers to receive
training in the use of EFVS prior to conducting EFVS operations. These
recommendations can be found in the airplane flight manuals for these
manufacturers' aircraft. Additionally, recent recommendations by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and legislative action by
Congress highlight a concern with and commitment to safety, pilot
training, standards, and performance.
    Non-commercial operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft have also
recognized the need for specialized ground and flight training in the
use of EFVS. These operators generally obtain EFVS training for their
pilots at part 142 training centers prior to conducting EFVS
operations. This practice clearly demonstrates the importance these
operators place on training in order to safely conduct EFVS operations.
    EFVS operations are often conducted in visibility conditions
similar to those under which Special Authorization Category I, Category
II, Special Authorization Category II, and Category III operations are
conducted. These operations are conducted to lower than standard minima
and require special aircrew training.
    Expanding the operational conditions and benefits for operators who
use EFVS technology would increase the number and mix of aircraft and
operators conducting low visibility operations at airports throughout
the national airspace system. Establishing training requirements for
the conduct of EFVS operations would 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. This approach is consistent with that taken for other
technology-based vision enhancements such as night vision goggles, for
which the FAA established training requirements in 2009 (74 FR 42500;
August 21, 2009).
    The FAA proposes, therefore, to codify current EFVS training
practices by amending Sec.  61.31 to require ground training for any
person manipulating the controls of an aircraft or acting as pilot in
command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation. This requirement would
apply to EFVS operations conducted to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation under existing EFVS regulatory provisions and to EFVS
operations conducted to touchdown and rollout under this proposal. In
addition, the FAA would require any person who serves as a required
pilot flight crewmember during an EFVS operation conducted to touchdown
and rollout under proposed Sec.  91.176(a) to obtain ground training.
The ground training would be required to be received from an authorized
instructor under a training program approved by the Administrator.
Additionally, a logbook or other endorsement would be required to be
obtained from an authorized instructor who would certify that the
person satisfactorily completed the ground training.
    A person who serves as a required pilot flight crewmember during an
EFVS operation that is conducted to 100 feet under the existing EFVS
rule, but who does not manipulate the controls or serve as pilot in
command of that aircraft, would not be required to receive EFVS ground
training. These pilots are not required to receive EFVS ground training
under current regulatory provisions. The FAA believes that the EFVS-
specific call outs and crew coordination items performed by the pilot
monitoring who would not also be acting as pilot in command (PIC)
during an EFVS operation to 100 feet are so similar in nature to duties
he or she normally performs on an instrument approach procedure that
the completion of a formal EFVS ground training program for these
pilots should not be required. The FAA further believes that these
pilots can obtain the knowledge necessary to satisfactorily accomplish
these additional tasks through computer based training, self study,
other non-regulatory means, or through compliance with other
regulations. Section 61.55, for example, contains provisions requiring
a person serving as second-in-command to be familiar with the
operational procedures applicable to an aircraft's powerplant,
equipment and systems, its performance specifications and limitations,
its normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, and its flight manual,
placards and markings. Additionally, that pilot must comply with the
training provisions of the part under which the operation is conducted,
such as part 121, which requires ground and flight training appropriate
to the particular assignment of the pilot flight crewmember.
    Under this proposal, the ground training would, at a minimum,
consist of the following subjects:
     Applicable portions of this Chapter I of Title 14 that
relate to EFVS flight operations and limitations, including Aircraft
Flight Manual (AFM) limitations;
     EFVS display, controls, modes, features, symbology,
annunciations, and associated systems and components;
     EFVS sensor performance, sensor limitations, scene
interpretation, visual anomalies, and other visual effects;
     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;
     Weather associated with low visibility conditions and its
effect on EFVS performance;
     Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination
procedures when using EFVS; and
     Interpretation of approach and runway lighting systems and
their display characteristics when using an EFVS.
    In considering those subjects that would be included in the
proposed ground training, the FAA evaluated FSB recommendations and
EFVS training material developed by part 142 training centers, EFVS
manufacturers, and persons conducting operations under parts 121, 135,
and subpart K of part 91. Additionally, the FAA reviewed EFVS training
material used by the U.S. military and European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) training requirements for EFVS operations.
    The FAA also proposes to amend Sec.  61.31 to require flight
training for any person manipulating the controls of an aircraft or
acting as pilot in command of an aircraft during an EFVS operation. In
order to ensure the continuation of current flight training practices,
implement FSB flight training recommendations, and perpetuate the safe
conduct of EFVS operations in an increasingly complex and rapidly
evolving operational environment, the FAA believes that any person
manipulating the controls of an aircraft or acting as pilot in command
of an EFVS operation should receive EFVS flight training. This
requirement would apply to pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100
feet above the touchdown zone elevation under the existing rule and
also to pilots conducting EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout
under this proposal.
    The FAA evaluated the same material it used to determine proposed
ground training subjects and determined that EFVS flight training
would, at a minimum, include the following tasks:
     Preflight and inflight preparation of EFVS equipment for
EFVS operations, including EFVS setup and use of display, controls,
modes and associated systems, including adjustments for

brightness and contrast under day and night conditions;
     Proper piloting techniques associated with using EFVS
during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and rollout, to
include missed approaches and balked landings;
     Proper piloting techniques for the use of EFVS during
instrument approaches, to include operations below DA/DH or MDA as
applicable, under both day and night conditions;
     Determining enhanced flight visibility;
     Identifying required visual references appropriate to EFVS
operations;
     Transitioning from EFVS sensor imagery to natural vision
acquisition of required visual references and the runway environment;
     Using EFVS sensor imagery to touchdown and rollout, if
EFVS operations as specified in Sec.  91.176(a) are to be conducted;
and
     Normal, abnormal, emergency, and crew coordination
procedures when using an EFVS.
    The flight training would have to be received from an authorized
instructor under a training program approved by the Administrator.
Additionally, a logbook or other endorsement would have to be obtained
from an authorized instructor who finds the person proficient in the
use of EFVS. To ensure that the authorized instructor providing the
flight training is knowledgeable and proficient in the conduct of EFVS
operations, that instructor would have to meet the training
requirements for EFVS operations specified in proposed Sec.  61.31(l).
    Under this proposal, a training program approved by the
Administrator could include EFVS training received through a part 141
pilot school, a part 142 training center, or an FAA-approved training
program other than that provided under parts 141 or 142. One example of
an FAA-approved training program other than that provided under parts
141 or 142 could be a training program approved under part 121. Another
example could be an approved EFVS training program conducted by a
corporate flight department with experience in the conduct of EFVS
operations. The FAA would require an EFVS training program to be
approved to ensure that pilots receiving that training are trained and
tested to a specific standard and that the training program content
supports the EFVS operation to be conducted.
    Flight training for EFVS may be accomplished in the actual aircraft
or in a simulator equipped with an EFVS. In accordance with FSB
recommendations for EFVS training, the FAA has determined that flight
simulators used to conduct this training would have to be either a
level `C' simulator with a daylight visual display, or a level `D'
simulator. Each simulator would have to be qualified for EFVS by the
National Simulator Program.
    The FAA recognizes that an operator may opt to conduct less than
the full range of EFVS operations due to equipment or operational
limitations. For example, an operator's aircraft may only be equipped
to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone
elevation and its pilots are only trained to conduct those operations.
That operator may later decide, however, to conduct EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout. The proposal would not require this operator's
pilots to complete the full training program applicable to EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout, but only that portion of the
flight training program addressing the differences between the two
operations. The proposal would require that this training be documented
by an endorsement. In lieu of completing this differences training, a
pilot could complete a pilot proficiency check on the additional EFVS
operations administered by an FAA inspector, designated examiner, a
check airman under parts 121, 125, or 135, or a program manager check
pilot under part 91, subpart K.
    Under this proposal, the ground training requirements of proposed
Sec.  61.31(l)(1) and flight training requirements of proposed
paragraph (l)(3) would not apply if a person has satisfactorily
completed a pilot proficiency check on EFVS operations and received a
logbook endorsement verifying that the check has been completed. The
proficiency check, however, would be applicable to the specific type of
EFVS operation to be conducted. For example, an EFVS proficiency check
conducted for EFVS operations to 100 feet would not meet the
requirement for a proficiency check for EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout. Additionally, a proficiency check for EFVS operations to
touchdown and rollout may not meet all of the requirements for a
proficiency check for EFVS operations to 100 feet because it may not
include non-precision approaches. The FAA recognizes, however, that a
proficiency check for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout could be
combined with a proficiency check for EFVS operations to 100 feet that
addresses the conduct of non-precision approaches.
    The pilot proficiency check would be permitted to be conducted by
an FAA inspector or designated examiner, a check airman under parts
121, 125, or 135, or a program manager check pilot under part 91,
subpart K. The pilot proficiency check could also be conducted by a
person authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to administer EFVS
proficiency checks, provided the person receiving the check was a
member of the U.S. Armed Forces at the time the check was administered.
The proficiency check could also be conducted by an authorized
instructor employed by a Federal, State, county, or municipal agency to
administer an EFVS proficiency check, provided the person receiving the
check was employed by that agency at the time the check was
administered.
    Under proposed Sec.  61.31(l)(7), the requirements of Sec.
61.31(l)(1) and (l)(3) would not apply to a person who has
satisfactorily completed an EFVS training program, proficiency check,
or other course of instruction applicable to EFVS operations conducted
under Sec.  91.176(b). The training program, proficiency check, or
course of instruction would have to be acceptable to the FAA and could
be completed prior to this proposal, but no later than 24 months after
the effective date of the final rule. The EFVS training program could
be provided by a part 141 pilot school, a part 142 training center, or
through another course of instruction the FAA would consider
acceptable. Because current industry practice for training pilots to
conduct EFVS operations typically includes both ground and flight
training, the FAA believes that most pilots currently conducting EFVS
operations have already completed EFVS ground and flight training at a
part 141 pilot school, a part 142 training center, or through other
ground and flight training acceptable to the Administrator for which
they could show a logbook endorsement or training record. The FAA
believes this provision would decrease the regulatory burden on pilots
who have been safely conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet under
current regulations. Additionally, the proposal would provide pilot
schools and training centers with adequate time to develop training
programs that meet the proposed training requirements. By including
specific provisions in proposed Sec.  61.31(l)(7) to permit the use of
training programs, proficiency checks or other courses of instruction
for a 2 year period, the FAA would provide pilots currently conducting
EFVS operations with a reasonable means of

demonstrating compliance with the proposed ground and flight training
requirements of Sec.  61.31(l)(1) and (l)(3). Providing pilots with
time and a flexible means to show compliance with the proposed training
requirements for EFVS should ensure that existing EFVS operators can
comply with the new provisions with little or no impact.

F. Establish New Recent Flight Experience and Proficiency Requirements
for Persons Conducting EFVS Operations (Sec.  61.57)

    Part 61 does not currently contain recent flight experience or
proficiency requirements in order to conduct EFVS operations. The FAA
believes it is necessary to establish recent flight experience and
proficiency requirements to ensure that an appropriate level of skill
is maintained to permit a pilot to conduct EFVS operations in low
visibility conditions. The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  61.57 to require
recent flight experience or a proficiency check for a person conducting
an EFVS operation or acting as pilot in command during an EFVS
operation. This requirement would apply to both EFVS operations
conducted to 100 feet under the current EFVS rule and to EFVS
operations conducted to touchdown and rollout under this proposal.
    Although recent flight experience requirements are not currently
specified in part 61 for the conduct of EFVS operations, the FAA
believes that the proposal would lead to a significant increase in the
scope and number of EFVS operations. EFVS operations are complex
operations involving the use of a HUD with a sensor image that are
typically conducted in low visibility conditions. The skills necessary
to operate EFVS equipment under these conditions are perishable. In
addition, the occurrence of these low visibility conditions is
infrequent. Consequently, recent EFVS flight experience is necessary to
prevent the loss of these skills and to ensure that EFVS operations are
conducted safely. As EFVS equipment evolves to permit operations in
lower visibility environments than are currently allowed, the need for
pilots to maintain recent flight experience will become even more
critical.
    This proposal would permit a person to manipulate the controls of
an aircraft during an EFVS operation or act as pilot in command of an
aircraft during an EFVS operation only if, 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 while
using an EFVS. Unlike the instrument experience requirements specified
in Sec.  61.57(c), these approaches need not be conducted in actual
weather conditions or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting
device. Since the EFVS can present a sensor image to the pilot in both
IFR and VFR weather conditions, the FAA proposes to permit these
approaches to be conducted under any weather conditions. One approach
would be required to terminate in a full stop landing. For persons
seeking to maintain currency to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown
and rollout, the full stop landing would be required to be conducted
using the EFVS. This requirement could be met in an aircraft or in a
simulator equipped with an EFVS. If an EFVS-equipped simulator is used,
it would have to be a level ``C'' simulator, with a daylight visual
display, or a level ``D'' simulator that has been qualified for EFVS by
the National Simulator Program. The purpose of requiring recent EFVS
flight experience is to ensure that a pilot remains proficient in the
use of all EFVS system components and operating procedures.
    Under the proposal, a person acting as pilot in command or a person
who is manipulating the controls of an aircraft in an EFVS operation
would either be required to meet the proposed EFVS recent flight
experience requirements or pass an EFVS proficiency check. The
proficiency check would consist of the training tasks listed in
proposed Sec.  61.31(l) and would be required to be performed in the
category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege
or in a flight simulator that is representative of that category of
aircraft. The proficiency check could also be accomplished in a level
``C'' simulator, with a daylight visual display, or a level ``D''
simulator that has been qualified for EFVS by the National Simulator
Program. Under this proposal, an EFVS proficiency check must be
performed by--
     An FAA Inspector or designated examiner who is qualified
to perform EFVS operations in that same aircraft category;
     A person who is authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to
perform EFVS proficiency checks, provided the person being administered
the check is also a member of the U.S. Armed Forces;
     A company check pilot who is authorized to perform EFVS
proficiency checks under parts 121, 125, or 135, or subpart K of part
91 of this chapter, provided that both the check pilot and the pilot
being tested are employees of that operator or fractional ownership
program manager, as applicable;
     An authorized instructor who meets the additional training
requirements for EFVS operations specified in Sec.  61.31(l) of this
chapter, and if conducting a proficiency check in an aircraft, the
recent flight experience specified in paragraphs (h) or (i) of this
section; or
     A person approved by the FAA to perform EFVS proficiency
checks.
    The FAA notes that in accordance with the provisions of Sec.
61.57(e)(2), the proposed recent flight experience requirements would
not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by an air carrier
certificated to conduct operations under parts 121 or 135. The pilot,
however, must be engaged in a flight operation under parts 91, 121, or
135 for that air carrier and in compliance with Sec. Sec.  121.437 and
121.439, or Sec. Sec.  135.243 and 135.247, as appropriate.
Additionally, proposed Sec.  91.176 would require each pilot flight
crewmember to meet the applicable training, testing and qualification
provisions of parts 121 or 135, as appropriate. The operation would
also be required to be conducted in accordance with operations
specifications authorizing the use of EFVS.

G. Permit EFVS-Equipped Aircraft To Be Dispatched, Released, or To
Initiate a Flight When the Reported or Forecast Visibility at the
Destination Airport Is Below Authorized Minimums (Sec. Sec.  121.613,
121.615, 125.361, 125.363, 135.219)

    Under current regulations, persons operating aircraft under part
121, 125, or 135 must evaluate weather reports and forecasts for the
destination airport and determine that weather conditions at the
expected time of arrival will be at or above the minimums authorized
for the instrument approaches to be flown. This requirement must be met
in order to dispatch a flight under part 121, release a flight under
part 125, or takeoff under part 135, regardless of whether or not the
aircraft is equipped with an approved EFVS. This limitation precludes
operators from fully leveraging EFVS capabilities that would increase
access, efficiency, and throughput at destination airports when low
visibility is a factor.
    The enhanced flight visibility provided by an EFVS enables
instrument approach operations to be conducted safely in lower
visibilities than would be possible using natural vision. To take full
advantage of this capability and to provide improved operational
reliability, the FAA proposes to amend the dispatch, flight release,
and takeoff regulations found in Sec. Sec.  121.613, 121.615, 125.361,
125.363,

and 135.219 to permit operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch,
release, or takeoff 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. In addition, the FAA
proposes to amend the regulations to permit aircraft equipped with EFVS
to initiate 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. Authorizations would be based on demonstrated EFVS
capabilities. This proposal is discussed in more detail in Section III-
H. These changes would 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.
    The FAA proposes to authorize operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft
who plan to conduct EFVS operations at the destination airport to
dispatch a flight under part 121, release a flight under part 125, or
takeoff under part 135 when weather conditions at the destination
airport will be below the minimums for the approach to be flown at the
estimated time of arrival. This authorization is granted through
OpSpecs for EFVS operations, or for part 125 LODA holders, their LOA
for EFVS operations. The authorization would also apply to EFVS
operations conducted to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation
under proposed Sec.  91.176(b), as well as to EFVS operations conducted
to touchdown and rollout under proposed Sec.  91.176(a). As further
discussed in Section III-M, the FAA expects to manage this
authorization through an operator's OpSpec or LOA for EFVS operations
to ensure that an increase in the rate of missed approaches does not
occur. Because EFVS performance can vary by sensor technology and
design, meteorological conditions, and other factors, adjustments to
the authorization could be made according to the performance
demonstrated. Managing the authorization in this manner would permit
the FAA to effectively respond to new technology developments and
tailor an authorization to fit an operator's particular EFVS
capabilities.

H. Permit operators of EFVS-Equipped Aircraft To Initiate or Continue
an Approach When the Destination Airport Visibility Is Below Authorized
Minimums (Sec. Sec.  121.651, 125.325, 125.381, 135.225)

    Under current Sec.  121.651, no pilot may continue an approach past
the FAF, or begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure where a FAF is not used, when the latest weather report for
that airport reports the visibility to be less than the visibility
minimums prescribed for that procedure. There are two exceptions to
this requirement. In the first exception, if a pilot has begun the
final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in
accordance with Sec.  121.651(b), and after that receives a weather
report indicating below minimum conditions, he or she 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 for conducting
EFVS operations to 100 feet under current Sec.  91.175(l) are met, or
the requirements for continuing the approach using natural vision under
Sec.  121.651(c) are met.
    The second exception permits 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 if that
airport is served by an operative instrument landing system (ILS) and
an operative precision approach radar (PAR), and both are used by the
pilot. The pilot may continue the approach below the authorized DA/DH
if the requirements of current Sec.  91.175(l) are met, or if the
requirements for continuing the approach using natural vision under
Sec.  121.651(d) are met.
    Under Sec. Sec.  125.325 and 125.381, no pilot may execute an
instrument approach procedure when the latest reported visibility is
less than the landing minimums specified in the certificate holder's
OpSpecs. Under Sec.  135.225, no pilot may begin an instrument approach
procedure to an airport when the latest weather report indicates that
weather conditions are below the authorized IFR landing minimums for
that airport. There are several exceptions to these requirements for
persons conducting operations under parts 125 or 135. If a pilot
conducting EFVS operations under part 125 has already initiated the
instrument approach procedure, or if a pilot conducting EFVS operations
in accordance with Sec.  135.225(b) has begun the final approach
segment of an instrument approach procedure, and subsequently receives
another weather report that indicates conditions are below the minimum
requirements, the pilot may continue the approach only if the
requirements of current Sec.  91.175(l) are met for EFVS operations
conducted to 100 feet. If EFVS is not used, then the approach can only
be continued if the later weather report is received during one of the
following three phases: when the aircraft is on an ILS approach and has
passed the FAF; the aircraft is on an airport surveillance radar (ASR)
or PAR final approach and has been turned over to the final approach
controller; or the aircraft is on a nonprecision final approach and the
aircraft has passed the appropriate facility or FAF, or where a FAF 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. Upon reaching the authorized MDA
or DH the pilot must find that the actual weather conditions are at or
above the minimums prescribed for the procedure being used.
    The visibility requirements currently imposed for beginning or
continuing an approach under parts 121, 125, and 135, prevent EFVS from
being used to its full operational advantage. These restrictions
significantly limit the utility of EFVS for these operators resulting
in reduced access to airports in low visibility conditions. Currently,
EFVS equipage is highest among part 91 operators because they are not
limited by restrictions on the weather conditions required to begin or
continue an approach.
    Nine years of EFVS operational experience has shown that, under
certain reduced visibility conditions, an EFVS can increase the
likelihood that an approach and landing can be successfully completed.
In cases where the visibility is marginal, such as during rapidly
changing weather conditions, or when the reported visibility hovers at
or near the minimum authorized, natural vision may be inadequate for a
pilot to detect the required visual references necessary to complete
the approach. EFVS provides a significant operational advantage under
reduced visibility conditions, when natural vision is most compromised.
Ground stops, holding delays, and diversions to an alternate airport
could be reduced in these situations, especially if persons conducting
operations under parts 121, 125, and 135 are authorized to use an EFVS
in weather conditions that would

normally preclude an approach from being initiated or continued. Since
the proposal would authorize an EFVS-equipped aircraft to be dispatched
when the destination weather is reported or forecast to be below
authorized minimums, the FAA believes that permitting that aircraft to
initiate or continue an approach in those weather conditions would also
be appropriate.
    Recognizing the operational benefits of EFVS, Federal Express
Corporation (FedEx) petitioned for exemption from Sec.  121.651(b)(2)
on March 21, 2008 (Docket No. FAA-2008-0370) to the extent necessary to
allow FedEx aircraft equipped with EFVS to continue an approach beyond
the FAF, or to begin the final approach segment of an instrument
approach procedure, if the latest weather report for that airport
reports the visibility to be less than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure. On January 13, 2009, NetJets
International, Inc. (NJI) petitioned for exemption from Sec.
135.225(a)(2) (Docket No. FAA-2009-0047) to the extent necessary to
allow NJI aircraft equipped with an EFVS to begin an instrument
approach procedure to an airport when the latest weather report for
that airport indicates that weather conditions are less than the
authorized visibility minimums for that procedure. Both petitioners
requested relief from the prohibition on beginning or continuing an
approach when the reported visibility is below the authorized minimum
visibility for the approach. Both petitioners asserted that granting
their petitions would benefit the public while maintaining an
equivalent level of safety to that provided under the current
regulations. On December 24, 2009, the FAA issued Grant of Exemption
No. 9984 to FedEx, and on September 30, 2010, the FAA issued Grant of
Exemption No. 10147 to NJI. Both Grants of Exemption, however, were
subject to specific conditions and limitations.
    To take full advantage of the operational capability of EFVS and to
increase the likelihood that an approach would be successfully
completed in low visibility conditions, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec. Sec.  121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225, to permit persons
conducting operations under parts 121, 125, or 135 to begin or to
continue an approach when the reported visibility is below the
authorized minimum visibility for the approach to be flown, provided
the aircraft is equipped with, and the pilot uses, an EFVS in
accordance with proposed Sec.  91.176. The FAA proposes to authorize
this operational capability for part 121, 125, and 135 operators
through their OpSpec for EFVS operations, or for part 125 LODA holders,
their LOA for EFVS operations. This authorization would apply to EFVS
operations conducted to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation
under proposed Sec.  91.176(b), as well as to EFVS operations conducted
to touchdown and rollout under proposed Sec.  91.176(a). Authorizations
would be based on demonstrated EFVS capabilities.
    As an alternative to the proposal, the FAA considered authorizing a
\1/3\ visibility credit for EFVS-equipped operators as is currently
permitted by EASA. Under EASA regulations, for example, if the
authorized minimum visibility for an instrument approach procedure is
2400 feet runway visual range (RVR), a person operating an EFVS-
equipped aircraft could reduce the minimum visibility required for an
approach by \1/3\ resulting in an adjusted required minimum visibility
of 1600 RVR for the approach. After careful consideration, the FAA
determined that this alternative would be unnecessarily restrictive and
would not provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate future
advances in EFVS technology.
    As further discussed in Section III-M, the FAA expects to manage
this authorization through an operator's OpSpec or LOA for EFVS
operations. For reasons identical to those discussed in Section III-G,
this action would permit the FAA to effectively respond to new
technology developments and tailor an authorization to fit an
operator's particular EFVS capabilities.

I. Revise Category II and III General Operating Rules To Permit the Use
of an EFVS (Sec.  91.189)

    The general operating rules for Category II and III operations are
contained in Sec.  91.189. Section 91.189, however, only pertains to
part 91 operators other than those conducting operations under part 91,
subpart K (see Sec.  91.189(g)). The provisions of Sec.  91.189 do not
apply to Category II or 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.
    Under current regulations, no pilot operating an aircraft on a
Category II or Category III approach that requires the use of a DA/DH
can continue the approach below the authorized decision height unless
at least one of the visual references listed in Sec.  91.189(d)(2) is
distinctly visible and identifiable. Under current regulations, the
visual references must be seen using natural vision. The FAA proposes
to amend Sec.  91.189(d) to permit an EFVS to be used in lieu of
natural vision to identify the visual references required for descent
below the authorized decision height on a Category II or III approach.
A pilot conducting a Category II or III approach in accordance with
Sec.  91.189(d) would comply with either the provisions of that
paragraph for identifying required visual references using natural
vision or with the provisions of proposed Sec.  91.176 for identifying
required visual references using EFVS.
    The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.189(e) to permit a pilot
operating an aircraft in a Category II or III approach to continue the
approach below the authorized DA/DH provided that the conditions
specified in proposed Sec.  91.176 are met. The proposed changes would
permit required visual references to be identified using EFVS in lieu
of natural vision.
    The FAA notes that all of the equipment requirements and airmen
certification requirements for the conduct of Category II and Category
III operations would continue to apply when an EFVS is also 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 a
Category II or Category III operation would be required to revise its
Category II or Category III manual specified in Sec.  91.191 to reflect
the use of EFVS. A person seeking to conduct Category II or Category
III operations where the use of EFVS is necessary to conduct those
operations would have to be authorized by the Administrator.
    The FAA believes that the use of an EFVS could provide operational
benefits during the conduct of Category II and Category III approaches,
especially as advanced imaging sensor capabilities are developed to
penetrate lower visibility conditions. Using EFVS in combination with
Category II or III capabilities could improve situation and position
awareness throughout the approach, landing, and rollout. It could also
minimize the potential for missed approaches, reduce the cost
associated with missed approaches and contribute to increased access,
efficiency, and throughput when low visibility is a factor.

J. Revise Pilot Compartment View Rules To Establish Airworthiness
Standards for Vision Systems With Transparent Displays Located in the
Pilot's Outside 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. Additionally, the
regulations specify that the pilot compartment must 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. This proposal, however, would only address
vision systems with a transparent display surface located in the
pilot's outside view, such as a head-up-display, head-mounted display,
or other equivalent display. Such ``vision systems'' include any
enhanced vision system, EFVS, SVS, or combined vision system.
    For over a decade, the FAA has certified vision systems for
transport category aircraft that have head-up displays. During this
process, the FAA found that the existing 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 could be used to enable the
installation of vision systems that would meet a level of safety
equivalent to that established in the regulations. Special conditions
were issued to each applicant, because special conditions are only
applicable to individual certification projects, and would be needed
for new projects until the regulations are amended.
    The first issuance of special conditions for a vision system
occurred in 2001 for the Gulfstream G-V. Since 2005, special conditions
for vision systems have been issued for the following aircraft: (1)
Bombardier BD-700 Global Express; (2) Bombardier CL-600; (3) McDonnell
Douglas MD-10-10F/30F; (4) Dassault Falcon 900EX and 2000EX; (5) Boeing
737-700/-800/-900; (6) Boeing 757-200; (7) Boeing 777F; (8) Dassault
Falcon 7X; and (9) Gulfstream G-VI.
    These special conditions were developed to ensure that the vision
system could perform its intended functions with a level of safety
equivalent to that established in the regulations. While the FAA issues
special conditions to address novel or unusual design features in a
particular aircraft, for consistency the FAA attempted to standardize
these special conditions to the maximum extent possible. With over
twelve years of experience, the process of developing special
conditions for vision systems has become routine. Operational
experience has shown that the certification requirements, set forth in
the special conditions, have resulted in safe and effective vision
system operations.
    The FAA recognizes, however, that the issuance of these special
conditions adds significant time and expense to a certification
project. These concerns have also been noted in the May 22, 2012 Report
from the Aviation Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration.
    In that report, the committee recommended that the FAA address the
continued use of special conditions in lieu of rulemaking by updating
airworthiness standards in cases where special conditions have been
used for a period of time and the design being evaluated is no longer
new or novel. Accordingly, the FAA has determined it would be in the
public interest to revise pilot compartment view rules to establish
airworthiness standards for vision systems with transparent displays.
This action would respond to the committee's concerns, provide industry
with known requirements for the certification of these systems, and
eliminate the costs resulting from the process of issuing special
conditions.
    Based on the experience gained by the FAA in developing special
conditions, the FAA now believes that it is appropriate to establish
airworthiness standards for vision systems with transparent displays
located in the pilot's outside view for airplanes and rotorcraft.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  23.773, 25.773,
27.773, and 29.773 to include those general requirements that were
previously contained in special conditions. In recognition of the rapid
development of vision system technology, the proposed amendments are
also written to permit the certification of a wide range of current and
future vision systems and to address display methods other than a HUD,
such as head-mounted displays or other types of head-up presentations.
    Although the proposed amendments differ slightly in structure to
conform with the sections to which they have been added, the proposed
requirements are essentially identical. The amendments would ensure
that the system compensates for interference, provides an undistorted
and conformal view of the external scene, provides a means to
deactivate the display, and does not restrict the pilot from performing
specific maneuvers.
    Each section would be amended to ensure that, while the vision
system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference
with the pilot's outside view. The combination of what is visible in
the display and what remains visible through and around it must enable
the pilot using a vision system to perform those actions necessary for
the operation of the aircraft as safely and effectively as would a
pilot without a vision system.
    The FAA proposes that while the vision system is in operation, it
must provide an undistorted view of the external scene. To ensure that
the information provided by the vision system to the pilot is conformal
to the external scene, the FAA would require that the imagery, attitude
symbology, flight path vector, flight path angle reference cue, and
other cues which are referenced to this imagery and external scene
topography, be presented in a manner that is aligned with, and scaled
to, the external scene.
    The vision system would be required to 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 and thrust, or power, controls. The
FAA believes that this proposed requirement is necessary in the
unlikely event that the vision system does not provide a clear and
undistorted image of the external scene or when the pilot does not wish
to utilize the system's full capabilities in time critical situations.
    When the vision system is not in operation, it must not restrict
the pilot from performing those maneuvers necessary for the safe
operation of the aircraft or detract from the ability of the pilot
compartment to meet applicable airworthiness standards. This proposed
requirement would ensure that when the vision system is not in
operation the pilot would be able to operate the aircraft as safely and
effectively as would a pilot without a vision system.
    The FAA notes that previously issued special conditions contained
additional requirements that have not been set forth in this proposal.
The FAA proposes that those previous requirements be specified in
guidance material as a means of compliance with the proposed
requirements set forth in Sec. Sec.  23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and
29.773. This guidance would be contained in proposed AC 20-167A,
Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision
System, Combined

Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment.
Additionally, certification criteria for head-up displays is contained
in AC 25-11A, Change 1, Electronic Flight Deck Displays.

K. Related Amendments (Sec. Sec.  91.175, 91.189, and 91.905)

    The reference in current Sec.  91.175(c)(3)(vi) to the term
``visual approach slope indicator'' would be revised to ``the visual
glideslope indicator.'' The FAA proposes to revise this term because
the term ``visual approach slope indicator'' is excessively
restrictive. The proposed revision would permit other devices, such as
a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) and a pulsating visual
approach slope indicator (PVASI), that provide visual glideslope
information to be used as a required visual reference for operations
below DA/DH or MDA during the conduct of an instrument approach
procedure.
    In a previous rulemaking action, 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, the references to ``DH or MDA'' in Sec.  91.175(l) were
not changed. The FAA proposes to correct this inadvertent omission and
amend proposed Sec.  91.176(b) accordingly.
    Currently Sec.  91.175 is listed as one of the rules in Sec.
91.905 that is subject to waiver. As the proposal moves the provisions
applicable to EFVS operations to 100 feet currently contained in Sec.
91.175(l) and (m) to proposed Sec.  91.176, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec.  91.905 to include proposed Sec.  91.176 as a rule subject to
waiver. Proposed Sec.  91.176 would also contain regulatory provisions
applicable to EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. As the FAA has
already permitted EFVS operations to 100 feet to be subject to waiver,
the FAA proposes that the provisions of the rule applicable to EFVS
operations to touchdown and rollout also be subject to waiver.

L. Conforming Amendments (Sec. Sec.  91.175 and 91.189)

    Certain conforming amendments consisting of revisions to regulatory
citations and updates to terms need to be made as the result of this
proposed rulemaking action and a previous rulemaking action.
    The introductory text of Sec.  91.175(c) would be amended to change
the reference to ``paragraph (l) of this section'' to ``Sec.  91.176''
since proposed Sec.  91.176 would contain the current and proposed
rules for EFVS.
    The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.175(d)(1) to refer to proposed
Sec.  91.176 because proposed Sec.  91.176 would contain rules for EFVS
operations. The FAA also proposes to amend Sec.  91.175(d)(1) to delete
the reference to paragraph (l)(4) of that section and refer to
paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iii) of proposed Sec.  91.176. These
paragraphs would contain the visual references required for descent
below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation for EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout and EFVS operations to 100 feet, respectively.
    Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec.  91.175 would be amended to revise the
reference to paragraph (l) of that section to refer to proposed Sec.
91.176 which would contain the rules for EFVS operations.

M. Implementation

    The FAA proposes to limit initial implementation of EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout to visibilities of no lower than 1000 RVR
because airworthiness and certification criteria have not been
developed to support EFVS operations below 1000 RVR. All operators who
wish to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout under this
proposal would be required to obtain an OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA, as
appropriate.
    Airworthiness and certification criteria to support EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout in visibilities as low as 1000 RVR 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 and EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. The special
committee was also tasked with developing MASPS for synthetic vision
systems (which are not the subject of the operational requirements of
this rule) and combined vision systems. On December 16, 2008, RTCA
published DO-315, which contained the MASPS for EFVS operations to 100
feet above the touchdown zone elevation. The FAA subsequently
incorporated these MASPS into AC 20-167, Airworthiness Approval of
Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision
System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment. RTCA SC-213 then
began work on MASPS for EFVS to touchdown operations. 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 recommended parsing the MASPS for touchdown
and rollout operations into two activities--MASPS for EFVS to touchdown
and rollout down to 1000 RVR and MASPS for EFVS to touchdown and
rollout down to 300 RVR. RTCA published DO-315A on September 15, 2010,
which contains the MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout
down to 1000 RVR. The FAA currently only plans to revise AC 20-167 to
incorporate these MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout
down to 1000 RVR. RTCA SC-213, however, is currently working to develop
MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout in visibilities down
to 300 RVR.
    Current enhanced flight vision systems use infrared-based (IR-
based) sensors. While IR-based sensors provide the required enhanced
flight visibility in certain visibility-limiting conditions, they
currently do not provide the enhanced flight visibility required by the
operating rules for EFVS to support operations in lower visibility
ranges. Industry is developing other sensor technologies, such as
millimeter wave radar, that are not limited in the same ways that IR-
based sensors are limited. These efforts are still developmental, but
show promise. Anticipating that industry's sensor development efforts
will produce sensors or sensor combinations that will provide adequate
enhanced flight visibility to support operations at less than 1000 RVR,
the FAA's proposed rule language has been written in a performance-
based manner.
    The FAA intends to manage these authorizations for EFVS to
touchdown and rollout through OpSpecs, MSpecs, and LOAs. Managing
authorizations in this manner would enable the FAA to structure an
operator's operational approval in a way that is performance-based--a
way that links equipage and system performance to specific operational
capabilities and authorizations. It would also permit the FAA to
respond more rapidly to new technology. Rather than restricting the use
of all vision technologies to a rigid and limiting set of visibility
values, the FAA, for example, could permit new EFVS operations as
vision technologies and appropriate equipment certification criteria
are developed. The FAA believes that its actions would accommodate
future growth in real-time sensor technologies without having to amend
the regulations to address these future technological advancements.

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
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Public Law 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 proposed
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
proposed 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) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would 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 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/index.html)
 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
would 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 about
3.7% per year based on the FAA 2012 forecast (Table 28, FAA Aerospace
Forecast Fiscal Years 2012-2032) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FAA forecast for active general aviation (GA) turbojets
is 3.7% for the period of 2011-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule
    Since the decision to conduct EFVS operations is voluntary, the FAA
expects those who choose to engage in those operations would do so only
if the expected benefit to them exceeds the cost they incur. The
proposed rule would enable expanded EFVS operations, which would
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,\2\, for example, 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 unknown
because both the infrastructure and EFVS capabilities are evolving.
Benefits of this proposed rule would be realized by averting costs
related to interrupted flight operations due to low visibility
resulting in lost passenger time and extra fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FAA airport infrastructure decisions are independent from
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since aircraft currently cannot use EFVS to touchdown and rollout,
we do not have sufficient historical data to quantify these benefits.
We invite comments from existing EFVS operators about their expected
benefits. We request comments to include airplanes affected, type of
operation, number of approaches that would be completed as a result of
adopting the provisions of the proposed rule, and extra costs of missed
approaches and delayed departures and arrivals.
    Revisions to pilot compartment view requirements for vision systems
with a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside view
would 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 proposed changes would streamline the
certification process for these vision systems by eliminating the need
to issue special conditions, the FAA and applicants would save the time
and expense associated with the issuance of these special conditions.
The full extent of these benefits is not known and therefore has not
been quantified in this analysis.
Costs of This Rule
    The regulatory costs attributed to the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed requirements equals
nominal training cost ($4.3 million) plus the initial certification
cost ($1 million). The compliance cost of the proposed equipment
requirements is negligible. The total incremental cost of the proposed
rule is approximately $5.3 million for the ten year period. The present
value cost is approximately $4.5 million using a seven percent discount

rate. The following table presents the summary of the regulatory costs
in 2012 dollars (nominal value) and present value (PV).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cost in 2012
         Cost component               dollars ($          PV at 7% ($
                                       million)            million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Cost...................                $4.3                $3.5
Certification Cost..............                 1                   1
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................                 5.3                 4.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revisions to pilot compartment view requirements for vision systems
with a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside view
would not result in additional certification costs compared to the
current process of issuing special conditions for each vision system
installation because the amendment would not require the FAA or an
applicant to take additional actions to certificate these systems. The
full extent of the costs for the certification of new vision systems
with a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside view
is not known and has not been quantified in the analysis.
Benefit/Cost Summary
    The total estimated cost of this proposed rule over 10 years is
approximately $5.3 million nominal value or $4.5 million present value
at a 7% discount rate. The annualized cost of this proposed rule in
current dollar value is a half million dollars. These estimated
compliance costs would be incurred by those operators who want improved
EFVS capabilities. OEMs are already proceeding with efforts to expand
EFVS capabilities, which indicate the benefits of conducting expanded
EFVS operations would likely exceed the costs. Operators have also
expressed an interest in obtaining EFVS capabilities to conduct
operations to touchdown and rollout. The revisions to pilot compartment
view requirements for vision systems with a transparent display surface
located in the pilot's outside view would not impose additional costs
from those currently incurred using the special conditions process. The
FAA believes the proposed rule would have benefits exceeding costs
based on the likelihood that OEMs and operators would voluntarily incur
the costs of the proposed rule in order to realize expected benefits.
To quantify benefits, we request comments about expected benefits
attributable to the proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    The FAA expects many small entities would benefit from this
proposed rule. The purpose of the rule is to provide the safe operating
requirements which would allow EFVS to extend operations from the
current 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation to landing. As
these systems are largely installed in general aviation turbojets, we
expect a substantial number of small entities to be affected. However,
as the rule is voluntary, these small entities must choose to comply
with this rule to obtain additional EFVS capabilities. Given the value
of these turbojets, the value of EFVS and the value of the flights, the
additional training cost would not result in a significant economic
impact. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would 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 proposed rule and determined that
the rule would not impose obstacles to foreign commerce, as foreign
exporters do not have to change their current export products to the
United States.

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 $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed 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 proposed information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information
collection requirements to OMB for its review.
    The paperwork burden comprises documentation of requirements for
training, recent flight experience, and proficiency under Sec.  61.31.
The following analyses were conducted under the 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
proposed Sec.  61.31(l) would result in a requirement to keep records
of training, recent flight experience, and proficiency. It would not
require mandatory reporting. We estimate the paperwork burden of these
requirements to be $86,000.
    The total 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. The requirement of
keeping flight crewmembers' training documentation is covered under
current Federal aviation regulations. Therefore, we would not repeat
the cost estimate of recordkeeping due to current training requirement.
Operators, however, are required to log their approaches using EFVS in
6 months in compliance with the recent flight experience and
proficiency requirements of the proposed 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 RITA-BTS Form 41.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the
information collection requirement by September 9, 2013, and should
direct them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention:
Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20053 or via facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.

F. International Compatibility

    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
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' discussion in the ``Regulatory
Notices and Analyses'' section elsewhere in this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would 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, would not have
Federalism implications.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed 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
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the FAA is aware of proprietary
information

filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is
held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and
the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA
receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as
any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
1 above.

VII. The Proposed Amendment

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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 Proposed Amendment

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

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

0