visibility was below authorized minimums. The FAA did not intend the
term ``certain operators'' to imply that additional restrictions would
be imposed upon individual operators.
    Dassault Aviation noted references made by the FAA to the European
Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) reduction of \1/3\ of the visibility
required to conduct an approach using EFVS in EASA member states.
Dassault Aviation requested that the FAA articulate its position with
respect to this means of calculating visibility minimums for EFVS
operations. The FAA acknowledges that EASA uses a different method to
permit operators to conduct EFVS operations. However, this rulemaking
only addresses EFVS operations that are subject to FAA regulations.
    Rockwell Collins asked whether the FAA and EASA will attempt to
harmonize EFVS approved capabilities and requirements in the future. In
its comment, Rockwell Collins referred to differences between FAA and
EASA regulations such as the requirements applicable to beginning an
approach when the reported visibility is less than the visibility
specified in the instrument approach procedure to be flown.
    The FAA participates on several international committees that are
tasked with addressing advanced vision system operations. Every attempt
is made to harmonize those operations; however, differences in
underlying operational concepts and existing regulations may preclude
full harmonization of EFVS rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Implementation

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

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

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

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

K. Miscellaneous Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest that
readers seeking greater details read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which we placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify the costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or other private sectors by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    As stated in the initial regulatory flexibility determination, the
FAA expects many small entities will benefit from this final rule. The
FAA did not receive comments on the initial regulatory flexibility
determination. Prior to the final rule, the regulations permitted
operators to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. The
final rule permits operators to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision
from 100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown and rollout. Operators under
parts 91, 91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 may conduct EFVS operations
to touchdown and rollout under the final rule. Accordingly, the final
rule may affect firms operating under those parts. The SBA size
standard as defined in 13 CFR 121.201, is the largest size that a

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

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that
the final rule will not impose obstacles to foreign commerce, as
foreign exporters do not have to change their current export products
to the United States; and that the final rule will impose the same
costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral
trade impact.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This action contains the following information collection
requirements:
     Section 61.66 requires pilots to keep records of training
and recent flight experience.
     Section 91.176(a) requires persons conducting operations
under part 91 to conduct EFVS operations in accordance with letters of
authorization for the use of EFVS.
    Below, we discuss each of these information collection requirements
in more detail.
    The information collections in Sec.  61.66 are already approved in
OMB control number 2120-0021. The paperwork burden under Sec.  61.66
comprises documentation of training, recent flight experience, and
refresher training. The following analyses were conducted under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501). If some operators
eventually choose to conduct EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout,
the provisions of Sec.  61.66 would result in a requirement to keep
records of training, recent flight experience, and refresher training.
The cost of the annualized paperwork burden is determined by
multiplying the number of pilots per EFVS-equipped aircraft (four) by
the number of EFVS aircraft (982) and then by the time of complying
with the paperwork requirements for each pilot. Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations already require flight crewmembers to document and
record training and aeronautical experience required to meet recent
flight experience requirements. 14 CFR 61.51. Therefore, the paperwork
burden resulting from Sec.  61.66 is already accounted for in the cost
estimate contained in OMB control number 2120-0021.
    For ease of readability, we will explain the portion of the total
cost estimate that pertains to documenting and recording EFVS recent
flight experience. Operators are required to log their approaches using
EFVS in 6 months in compliance with the recent flight experience
requirements of the new rule. The action of logging each approach in a
semiannual frequency can be done manually or electronically. We
estimated the time required to complete recordkeeping by flight
crewmembers would be about 0.10 hours semiannually or 0.20 hours
annually. Assuming 3,928 pilots would be affected by the recordkeeping
provisions of the rule, it would require about 786 hours of annual
paperwork, and approximately $86,000 nominal cost at the maximum based
on the average wage rate of $109 for flight crewmembers from the FAA
Form 41. This hourly burden and cost is already accounted for under OMB
control number 2120-0021.
    The information collection in Sec.  91.176(a) expands an existing
OMB-approved collection of information that is approved under OMB
control number 2120-0005. This collection of information governs
information that the FAA collects in order to assure compliance with
part 91. The

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

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

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

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

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

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How to Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

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

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 61

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

14 CFR Part 91

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

14 CFR Part 121

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

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

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

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

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

Sec.  1.1   General definitions.

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

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

Sec.  1.2   Abbreviations and symbols.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  23.773   Pilot compartment view.

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

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

Sec.  25.773   Pilot compartment view.

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

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

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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

Sec.  27.773   Pilot compartment view.

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

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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

Sec.  29.773   Pilot compartment view.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  61.57   Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

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

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

Sec.  61.66   Enhanced Flight Vision System Pilot Requirements

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

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

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

Sec.  61.66   [Amended]

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

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

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

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

Sec.  91.175   Takeoff and landing under IFR.

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

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

Sec.  91.175   Takeoff and landing under IFR.

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

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

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

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

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

altitude, the enhanced flight visibility using EFVS must be sufficient
for one of the following visual references to be distinctly visible and
identifiable to the pilot--
    (A) The runway threshold;
    (B) The lights or markings of the threshold;
    (C) The runway touchdown zone landing surface; or
    (D) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone.
    (4) Additional requirements. The Administrator may prescribe
additional equipment, operational, and visibility and visual reference
requirements to account for specific equipment characteristics,
operational procedures, or approach characteristics. These requirements
will be specified in an operator's operations specifications,
management specifications, or letter of authorization authorizing the
use of EFVS.
    (b) EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.
Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
conduct an EFVS operation in an aircraft, except a military aircraft of
the United States, at any airport below the authorized DA/DH or MDA to
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation unless the following
requirements are met:
    (1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be equipped with an operable
EFVS that meets the applicable airworthiness requirements.
    (ii) The EFVS must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A)
through (F) of this section, but need not present flare prompt, flare
guidance, or height above ground level.
    (2) Operations. (i) The pilot conducting the EFVS operation may not
use circling minimums.
    (ii) Each required pilot flightcrew member must have adequate
knowledge of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the EFVS, and the
procedures to be used.
    (iii) The aircraft must be equipped with, and the pilot flying must
use, an operable EFVS that meets the equipment requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (iv) The aircraft must continuously be in a position from which a
descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal
rate of descent using normal maneuvers.
    (v) For operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this
chapter, the descent rate must allow touchdown to occur within the
touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing.
    (vi) Each required pilot flightcrew member must meet the following
requirements--
    (A) A person exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate
issued under this chapter, any person serving as a required pilot
flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person serving
as a required pilot flightcrew member for a part 121, 125, or 135
operator, must be qualified in accordance with part 61 and, as
applicable, the training, testing, and qualification provisions of