required for pilots to perform EFVS operations. It pointed out that
most airlines only permit captains to fly very low visibility takeoffs
and instrument landing system (ILS) Category IIIB landings and that
first officers must also have the same training.
    The FAA will not issue a special rating to pilots for EFVS
operations. Instead, the FAA is establishing ground and flight training
requirements for EFVS operations in Sec.  61.66(a), (b), and (c), and
recent flight experience and refresher training requirements for EFVS
operations in Sec.  61.66(d) and (e). The FAA believes that the
training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements
of Sec.  61.66 are sufficient to ensure safe operations and that a
special rating for pilots who conduct EFVS operations is unnecessary.
Furthermore, Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports pertaining to
specific EFVS and aircraft installations have not specified that pilot
ratings for EFVS operations are necessary.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not propose to change
the current requirements of Sec.  121.651(d) with respect to non-EFVS
operations. The FAA notes, however, that Sec.  121.651(e) permits a
pilot to begin the final approach segment of an Area Navigation (RNAV)
(GPS) approach to the published LPV (or other applicable) minimums when
the visibility is reported to be below the visibility prescribed by the
instrument approach procedure when using EFVS as specified in that
paragraph.
    Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation commented that the FAA did not
limit the use of EFVS for landing to ``certain operators.'' However,
the commenter noted that the NPRM would have permitted ``certain
operators'' using EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, release, or
takeoff under IFR, and to initiate and continue an approach, when the
destination airport weather was below authorized visibility minimums
for the runway of intended landing. Gulfstream commented that the FAA's
use of the term ``certain operators'' makes it appear as if dispatch
and takeoff using EFVS is restricted. It further stated that if this
restriction applies to some operators and not others, the rationale for
the distinction should be provided.
    The term ``certain operators'' means persons conducting EFVS
operations under part 121, 125, or 135 whose operations are subject to
specific rules governing the dispatch, release, or takeoff of aircraft
under IFR. Prior to this final rule, regulations prohibited these
operators from dispatching, releasing, or initiating a flight under IFR
when the reported or forecast visibility at the destination airport was
below authorized minimums. Regulations also prohibited these operators
from initiating or continuing an approach when the destination airport