requirements in the future because the FAA's regulations describe an
exemption as a request for relief from the requirements of a
regulation. 14 CFR 11.15.
    \54\ The FAA will revise Order 8900.1, Flight Standards
Information Management System, Vol. 5, Chapter 1, Sec. 4,
Considerations for the Practical Test, 5-85 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT
USED DURING PRACTICAL TESTS to describe the process for obtaining an
authorization that designates an aircraft as a TAA in accordance
with Sec.  61.129(j). The FAA will also revise AC 61-65 to provide
guidance on how to submit a request to the Administrator to gain
approval of an airplane as a TAA, if the airplane does not already
meet the express requirements of Sec.  61.129(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA stated that the terms ``Primary Flight Display (PFD)'' and
``Multifunction Display (MFD),'' which are not defined anywhere, will
cause confusion. AOPA further noted that the same argument applies to
removing ``advanced'' from ``electronically advanced avionics system.''
The addition of ``advanced,'' without any clarification, will generate
questions over whether a particular system qualifies as advanced or
not. AOPA commented that if a particular airplane is equipped with the
items in proposed paragraphs (i) and (ii), then the airplane should be
considered equipped as a TAA with the appropriate electronic avionics
system.
    The FAA is retaining the terms ``Primary Flight Display,''
``Multifunction Display,'' and ``advanced'' in the TAA requirements.
The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD and MFD will cause confusion.
These terms are currently used and described in several FAA
publications that are recognized by the aviation industry, including
the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B), the Pilot's Handbook of
Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25), the Aviation Instructors
Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A), the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-
15B), and the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS). The Pilot's
Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge defines a PFD and MFD in the
glossary. PFD is defined as ``a display that provides increased
situational awareness to the pilot by replacing the traditional six
instruments used for instrument flight with an easy-to-scan display
that provides the horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, trend,
trim, and rate of turn among other key relevant indications.'' MFD is
defined as a ``small screen (CRT or LCD) in an aircraft that can be
used to display information to the pilot in numerous configurable ways.
Often an MFD will be used in concert with a primary flight display.''
    The FAA believes the terms PFD and MFD add clarity to the TAA
requirements by describing and prioritizing the display features and
elements for TAA avionics and their respective functions. For example,
the term PFD is specific to the use of the primary flight controls to
maintain aircraft attitude and positive control. The PFD is used by the
pilot to execute appropriate use of the control stick or yoke for pitch
and bank, rudder pedals for yaw, and throttle for engine power. The PFD
is designed specific to controlling the aircraft attitude and altitude
relative to the horizon and the surface of the earth, especially when
outside visibility is poor or unavailable. The MFD has a different
priority; its function is secondary to the PFD. The MFD is designed for
navigational use and position awareness information, even though it may
include some PFD features for redundancy. Furthermore, the FAA is
requiring certain minimum display elements for both a PFD and MFD,
respectively, thereby clarifying what will be considered a PFD or MFD.
    As for the term ``advanced,'' the FAA finds it necessary to
describe the avionics system of a TAA as ``advanced'' to differentiate
current new glass cockpit aircraft designs from older aircraft that
used six independent mechanical dial/analog style flight instruments.
    Twin City suggested the FAA clarify whether the MFD requirement may
be satisfied by a split-screen display (e.g., Dynon Skyview) or two
independent screens (e.g., Garmin G500) contained within a single
physical unit. Twin City also asked whether the moving map display of
common GPS/WAAS navigators (e.g., Garmin GTN650/750, Avidyne IFD 440/
540) would meet the MFD requirement.
    Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the minimum elements of a MFD;
it does not preclude the use of a split-screen display or two
independent screens contained within a single physical unit. Therefore,
a manufacturer may use a split-screen display or two independent
screens for the PFD and MFD provided the displays contain the minimum
elements required for each. Furthermore, in response to Twin City's
comment, the FAA is clarifying the MFD requirements by first describing
what the display shows (i.e., a moving map) and then describing how the
display is facilitated (i.e., using GPS navigation). Accordingly, Sec.
61.129(j)(2) now requires the MFD to include, at a minimum, a moving
map using GPS navigation. The FAA believes this revision to the
proposed language clarifies that a system with a moving map display
common to GPS/WAAS navigators would satisfy the MFD requirement.
Additionally, the FAA is requiring the aircraft position to be
displayed on the moving map. The FAA finds this additional language
adds clarity to the MFD requirement and ensures that existing
equipment, such as the systems identified by Twin City, would satisfy
the MFD requirement for a TAA.
    Several commenters noted ambiguity with requiring the MFD to
include an ``integrated two axis autopilot.'' Garmin noted that the
G500 and G600 have autopilot mode control and annunciations
capabilities for select autopilots on the PFD, not the MFD portion of
the display. Therefore, the autopilot function itself is provided in a
separate piece of equipment and not included in the MFD. Garmin also
noted that equipment, such as Garmin's GTN650 and GTN750, could be
considered an independent additional MFD that includes GPS with moving
map navigation but the autopilot function and related mode control and
annunciations are provided in separate pieces of equipment. Twin City
suggested the FAA remove ``integrated'' from the description of the
autopilot, allowing the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot
systems.
    In response to these comments, the FAA did not intend to exclude
systems that provide autopilot functions separate from the MFD. The FAA
is therefore separating the ``two-axis autopilot'' requirement from the
MFD requirement. Accordingly, under new Sec.  61.129(j)(3), the two
axis autopilot is no longer required to be included as part of the MFD.
This change from what was proposed allows the use of independent/
aftermarket autopilot systems.
    Twin City also asked the FAA to specify whether the integrated
autopilot must include GPS roll steering (GPSS). Furthermore, Twin City
asked whether the proposed two-axis requirement would have been
satisfied by autopilots

with altitude hold function only, or if vertical navigation (altitude
preselect, glideslope tracking, etc.) is required.
    In response to Twin City's comments, the TAA requirements of Sec.
61.129(j) do not require the autopilot to have GPSS. However, Sec.
61.129(j) specifies only the minimum requirements for a TAA. Therefore,
an autopilot may have additional features, including GPSS. The ``two
axis'' requirement refers to the lateral and longitudinal axes. The
autopilot at a minimum must be able to track a predetermined GPS course
or heading selection, and also be able to hold a selected altitude. The
autopilot is not, however, required to control vertical navigation
other than holding a selected altitude. The FAA is revising the
proposed language for clarity and to accommodate future advancements in
technology. Rather than requiring the MFD to have an integrated two
axis autopilot, the FAA is requiring the TAA to have a two axis
autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system.
The FAA believes this revision from what was proposed clarifies the
minimum requirements for the two axis autopilot and also allows for
flexibility in autopilot design and installation.
    AOPA, Garmin, and GAMA recommended that the FAA not require the MFD
to be an ``independent additional'' piece of equipment because this
requirement would preclude a single display that features the required
information of both a PFD and a MFD from qualifying as a TAA.
    The FAA agrees that the proposed definition of TAA would have been
unintentionally restrictive and would have excluded some qualifying
aircraft unnecessarily with its use of the phrase ``independent
additional.'' The proposed requirement for an MFD to be an independent
additional piece of equipment was intended to ensure that the minimum
display elements are visible at all times. The FAA is not opposed to an
aircraft having one display or piece of hardware that meets the overall
definition requirements of Sec.  61.129(j). The FAA is therefore
removing the phrase ``independent additional'' from the proposed
language to allow a single piece of equipment or single display to
satisfy the requirement for both a PFD and MFD. However, to ensure that
both displays are visible at the same time, the FAA is requiring the
display elements for both the PFD and MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2))
to be continuously visible.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 14 CFR 61.129(j)(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Garmin noted that the proposed phrase ``(MFD) that includes, at a
minimum, a Global Positioning System (GPS) with moving map navigation
and an integrated two axis autopilot'' is problematic. Garmin explained
that the MFD portion of the G500 and G600 has a moving map that is
driven by GPS but the GPS is a separate piece of equipment and not
included in the MFD portion of the display.
    In reference to the G500 and G600 equipment identified by Garmin,
the FAA understands that the PFD and MFD can be driven or supported by
other pieces of equipment to provide for its required functionality.
Many of the display features for the PFD and MFD can be driven by
separate pieces of equipment that are connected to the display. The TAA
requirements in no way restrict the use of peripheral or supporting
equipment that enables the display functionality described for the PFD
and MFD in the TAA requirements. Therefore, the FAA finds that the G500
and G600 equipment identified by Garmin likely satisfies the
requirements for an MFD.
    Garmin also commented that the phrase ``Global Positioning System
(GPS) with moving map navigation'' inappropriately mixes ``GPS'',
``moving map'', and ``navigation'' functionality. Garmin noted that FAA
has separate TSOs for these functions, including for GPS sensors: TSO-
C145 (GPS with SBAS), TSO-C161 (GPS with GBAS), and TSO-C196 (GPS
only); for moving map: TSO-C165, and for navigation: TSO-C146
(standalone navigation equipment using GPS/SBAS sensor) and TSO-C115d
(required navigation performance (RNP) equipment using multi-sensor
inputs). Garmin added that it would be better to list these functions
separately to allow for avionics architectures that provide these
functions in different equipment that still supports the concept of a
TAA.
    In response to Garmin's concern with the use of the terms GPS,
moving map, and navigation, the FAA is only describing the display
functionality requirements of the PFD and MFD equipment. The FAA is not
adopting any requirements for the underlying architecture or supporting
equipment that would provide for the display functions or
capabilities.\56\ Therefore, while there may be different TSOs for the
various functions of GPS, moving map, and navigation resulting in
separate pieces of underlying equipment, this equipment can support the
MFD requirements so long as the MFD includes a moving map that uses GPS
navigation with the aircraft position displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The FAA notes that any installed equipment must meet the
appropriate regulatory requirements and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GAMA commented that the FAA should consider whether it is
appropriate to evaluate designating certain rotorcraft as technically
advanced for certain training and testing related initiatives in the
future, noting several benefits.
    The FAA appreciates GAMA's comments. However, the FAA finds it
unnecessary to designate a rotorcraft as technically advanced at this
time because there are no regulatory requirements to obtain training in
a technically advanced rotorcraft.
2. Amendment to Aeronautical Experience Requirement for Commercial
Pilots
    The FAA proposed to amend Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with
an airplane category single engine class rating to complete the 10
hours of training in a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or a
TAA, or any combination of these three airplanes.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ As previously stated, prior to this final rule, a pilot
seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-
engine class rating was required to complete 10 hours of training in
either a complex or turbine-powered airplane. 14 CFR
61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA, American Flyers, Bemidji, Eagle Flight Centre, UND, NATA,
Twin City, and nine individuals, supported the proposal, noting that it
would provide training alternatives to aging complex airplanes and
reduce costs. Several commenters noted that allowing TAAs in place of
complex airplanes would introduce commercial pilot candidates to risk
management and increase pilot proficiency in systems management,
integration, and use of glass cockpit instrumentation, which would
result in a safer, more valuable training experience. Commenters
explained the costs and maintenance issues associated with aging
complex airplanes, and stated that allowing TAAs to be used as a
replacement would address the lack of availability of complex
airplanes. Furthermore, several commenters believed the proposal would
enhance safety, while others commented that any potential risk to
safety would be mitigated by the requirement in Sec.  61.31(e) that a
pilot receive training and an endorsement from an instructor prior to
acting as PIC in a complex airplane.
    As commenters noted, there are several benefits associated with
allowing TAAs to be used in place of complex airplanes. For these
reasons and for the reasons explained in the

NPRM, the FAA is amending Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part
141 to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an
airplane category single engine class rating to complete the 10 hours
of training in a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or a
TAA.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ General Aviation Airplane Shipment Report, End-of-Year 2006
(Washington, DC: General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2007)
indicates that 92 percent of the 2,540 piston airplanes delivered
during 2006 were equipped with glass cockpit electronic flight
displays. An Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety
Foundation Special Report titled ``Technically Advanced Aircraft--
Safety and Training'' states ``virtually every newly designed
transportation airplane is a TAA, including Lancair, Cirrus,
Diamond, and the Adam 500 * * * Many owners are retrofitting their
classic aircraft to convert them to TAA with IFR-certified GPS
navigators and multifunction displays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA recommended the FAA revise the proposed rule language of Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D of part 141 to clarify that the
combined use of complex, turbine-powered, and technically advanced
airplanes is permitted.
    As evident from the NPRM, the FAA intended to allow a pilot seeking
a commercial pilot certificate with a single engine class rating to
complete the 10 hours of training in any combination of complex,
turbine-powered, and technically advanced airplanes. However, the
proposed rule language did not reflect this intent. The FAA is
therefore adding language to Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to clarify that any combination of a complex airplane,
turbine-powered airplane, or TAA may be used. For consistency, the FAA
is also adding language to Sec.  61.129(b)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to clarify that a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate
with a multiengine class rating may complete the 10 hours of training
using any combination of multiengine complex airplanes or multiengine
turbine-powered airplanes.
    Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend
Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to allow an applicant
for a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating to
complete 10 hours of training in a complex, turbine-powered or
technically advanced airplane. The FAA explained how demonstration of
proficiency in an airplane that is electronically complex will be
comparable to the demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that is
mechanically complex. Thus, based on the FAA's proposal, the option to
use a TAA was intended to apply to all commercial pilot applicants for
a single-engine class rating regardless of whether the applicant was
seeking a land or sea rating. The FAA recognizes, however, that
proposed Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) did not accurately reflect this intent
as it applied to commercial pilot applicants for single-engine sea
ratings. Rather, proposed Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) would have allowed a
commercial pilot applicant for a single-engine sea rating to use only a
complex airplane. Therefore, consistent with its intent, the FAA is
revising proposed Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) to allow applicants for a
commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating
(including both land and sea) to complete the 10 hours of training in a
complex, turbine-powered, or technically advanced airplane, or any
combination thereof. The FAA is specifying in Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii),
however, that the airplane must be appropriate to land or sea depending
on the rating sought, which is consistent with the requirement in Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) as it existed prior to this final rule. The FAA is
also adding language to appendix D to part 141 to clarify that the
airplane used to satisfy the 10 hours of training in a complex,
turbine-powered, or TAA must be appropriate to land or sea depending on
the rating sought.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Under appendix D to part 141, each approved course must
include flight training on the approved areas of operation listed in
section 4, paragraph (d) that are appropriate to the aircraft
category and class rating for which the course applies. For an
airplane single-engine course, paragraph (d) requires training on
airport and seaplane base operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that
the ten hours of training in a complex, TAA, or turbine-powered
airplane should be appropriate to land or sea depending on the
rating sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bemidji suggested the FAA add an exception to Sec.  61.31(e), which
prescribes additional training for operating complex airplanes, and
Sec.  61.31(f), which prescribes additional training for operating
high-performance airplanes, to allow a part 135 flight instructor
without a current flight instructor certificate/flight instructor
instrument certificate to satisfy the training and endorsement
requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f). Bemidji recommended an
exception similar to Sec.  61.31(g)(3)(iv), which excepts from the
training and endorsements requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2)
persons who can document satisfactory completion of a PIC proficiency
check under part 121, 125, or 135 conducted by the Administrator or by
an approved pilot check airman. Bemidji noted that complex airplane
training is becoming difficult for new pilots to receive in both part
61 and part 141 flight school environments and that an increasing
number of part 135 instructors do not maintain a current flight
instructor certificate because it is not required. Bemidji added that
the current language in Sec.  61.31(e) may become an issue in the
typical flight training environment if the complex airplane is no
longer needed for the commercial certificate, and if fixed gear
multiengine aircraft become more popular in the flight training
environment.
    The FAA agrees with revising Sec.  61.31(e) and (f) to allow a
competency check under part 135 to meet the requirements for training
in complex or high performance airplanes. However, the FAA is not
providing an exception for part 121 or 125 operators. The change to the
commercial pilot training requirements to allow use of a TAA instead of
a complex airplane for the airplane single-engine class rating could
require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide this training to
newly employed pilots who may not have previous experience in complex
airplanes. The FAA understands Bemidji's comment to indicate that this
change could also require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide
high-performance airplane training to newly employed pilots. The FAA
infers this suggestion from Bemidji's comment because many complex
airplanes are also high-performance airplanes. As a result, many pilots
complete complex and high-performance training using the same airplane.
Therefore, since a complex airplane is no longer required for the
commercial certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating, it
is more likely that a newly-employed pilot at a part 135 air carrier or
operator might not have previous experience in a high-performance
airplane.
    In accordance with Sec.  135.323, a part 135 air carrier or
operator is currently required to establish and implement an approved
training program that ensures that each pilot, flight instructor, and
check pilot is adequately trained to perform his or her assigned
duties. Therefore, a part 135 approved training program for an airplane
that meets the definition of complex or high-performance will include
the required ground and flight training necessary to meet the intent of
Sec.  61.31(e)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(i), as applicable. All part 135 pilots
are required to complete a Sec.  135.293 competency check every 12
calendar months. Therefore, the FAA agrees with Bemidji that it is
appropriate to include an exception in Sec.  61.31(e) and (f) for
persons who have successfully completed a Sec.  135.293 competency
check in a complex or high performance airplane, or in an FSTD that is
representative of a complex or

high performance airplane.\60\ The FAA is adding these exceptions to
Sec.  61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii).\61\ The FAA notes that, in
accordance with these exceptions, the competency check must be
documented in the pilot's logbook or training record. Because part 125
operators are not required to have approved training programs, persons
will not have received the required ground and flight training specific
to the operation of complex and high performance airplanes in
accordance with an approved training program prior to completing a part
125 competency check. Therefore, the FAA is not providing an exception
for part 125 operators. Furthermore, the FAA finds it unnecessary to
include a part 121 proficiency check as an exception to Sec.  61.31(e)
and (f). Section 121.159 prohibits certificate holders from operating a
single-engine airplane under part 121. To obtain a commercial
certificate with an airplane multiengine land class rating, Sec.
61.129 requires a pilot to have received training in a multiengine
complex airplane. Furthermore, Sec.  121.436 requires pilots serving in
part 121 operations to hold an ATP certificate and an appropriate type
rating, and Sec.  61.159(a)(3) requires an applicant for an ATP
certificate with a multiengine rating to have 50 hours of flight time
in a multiengine airplane (of which 25 hours may be completed in a
FFS). As a result, the FAA expects that pilots will receive the
training and endorsements required by Sec.  61.31(e) and (f) prior to
obtaining employment at a part 121 air carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In accordance with Sec.  135.341, part 135 air carriers or
operators with only one pilot employee are not required to have an
approved training program. While these pilots are still required to
have satisfactorily completed a Sec.  135.293 competency check every
12 calendar months, the FAA finds that they may only be excepted
under new Sec.  61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) if they have received
ground and flight training under an approved training program.
    \61\ To add the exceptions to paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2), the
FAA had to reorganize the paragraphs. Accordingly, the exceptions
that were provided in former paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2) are now in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(i), respectively. The new exception
for persons who have satisfactorily completed a competency check
under Sec.  135.293 are now in Sec.  61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual, who identified himself as a pilot, suggested that to
mitigate the risk of gear up landings for students that did not receive
training in complex airplane it may be appropriate to amend the
requirements of 14 CFR 61.31(e). This individual suggested requiring
additional experience and/or training prior to receiving the complex
endorsement, rather than keeping the requirement under Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) with respect to commercial pilot certification.
    Similarly, SAFE and one individual recommended the FAA require a
commercial pilot to have at least 10 hours of PIC time in a complex
airplane prior to exercising commercial privileges in a complex
airplane.
    The FAA is not adding additional training or experience
requirements to Sec.  61.31(e). Adding the option to train in a TAA at
the commercial pilot level does not change the FAA's safety assessment
that a person who complies with Sec.  61.31(e), which requires training
and an endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the
person is proficient to operate a complex airplane, is sufficient.
    LOBO and four individuals, including one who identified himself as
an instructor, opposed the provision, asserting that the proposed
amendments would provide for a commercial pilot certificate without
experience operating the controls of a mechanically complex airplane.
LOBO stated that as proposed, training will result in a pilot who can
operate TAA, but will know nothing about systems and procedures on
complex airplanes such as controllable pitch propellers and retractable
landing gear systems. LOBO further stated that many of these commercial
pilots will go on to get flight instructor certificates and teach in
single engine airplanes, again without having to demonstrate complex
system operations. The individual, who identified himself as an
instructor, stated that it is the degradation in physical pilot skills
that has been noticed over time as having become problematic to the FAA
and National Transportation Safety Board. This commenter noted the
importance of demonstrated skill with learning, understanding and
demonstrating a complicated aircraft system in the performance of
flight duties. Another individual noted that the proposal would provide
the pilot with no experience in the flight dynamics (changing pitch and
drag) when operating landing gear, flaps and a controllable propeller.
    LOBO and three individuals, one of whom identified himself as an
instructor, noted that a combination of complex airplane and TAA for
use during training and checking would be a better choice.
Specifically, LOBO suggested that commercial pilot applicants should
have to demonstrate proficiency with both glass cockpit technology and
complex system operations, including use of the landing gear.
    LOBO and three individuals generally noted that current
requirements provide valuable experience in cockpit management
procedures and complex systems operations, not provided by TAA.
Specifically, LOBO noted that the perception that an FAA checkride in a
single engine TAA will produce a commercial pilot with the same skills
as one who had to learn complex airplane operations is false. One
individual noted that training in a complex airplane provides the
proper mindset and cockpit management procedures needed in order to be
successful long term pilots. Additionally, one individual, identified
as an instructor, noted that the original purpose of the regulation was
to ensure pilot demonstration and mastery of both the technical aspects
of the system operation and incorporating that understanding into the
safe and efficient operation of the airplane. This individual further
believed that the FAA has lost sight of that purpose in seeking to
substitute a TAA in place of complex or turbine powered airplanes.
    The FAA disagrees with comments suggesting that TAA skills are not
as significant or as necessary as complex airplane skills. The FAA does
not suggest that this is the same skill set required for operating a
complex airplane, but an appropriate experience requirement for a
commercial pilot applicant. This final rule allows the combined use of
a turbine-powered, complex, or TAA for satisfying the experience
requirements. In fact, most, if not all, production aircraft currently
produced now have glass cockpits utilizing advanced LCD displays for
aircraft control and navigation. These advanced flight information
systems are becoming mainstream equipment in both general and
commercial aviation aircraft operations, and many older aircraft are
being retrofitted with this new instrument glass cockpit technology.
    The FAA emphasizes that prior to acting as PIC of a complex
airplane, a commercial pilot (or any other certificated pilot) must
receive and log additional ground and flight training in a complex
airplane and receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor
certifying that the person is proficient to operate a complex
airplane.\62\ This final rule does not remove or amend that requirement
in any way. The FAA does not dispute that proficiency in a complex
airplane is a necessary skill for a commercial pilot who intends to
operate as PIC in such airplanes. Authorized flight instructors who
provide these complex airplane endorsements have a responsibility to

ensure the pilot is proficient and competent before providing the
endorsement. Therefore, pilots will continue to be formally trained and
required to demonstrate competency and proficiency in a complex
airplane prior to receiving an endorsement authorizing a pilot to
operate and act as PIC in a complex airplane.\63\ The FAA further
emphasizes that a fixed amount of time or experience in an aircraft
does not guarantee pilot proficiency. Training time requirements
leading to pilot proficiency can vary from one individual to another. A
flight instructor is expected to provide a sufficient amount of
training time as necessary to verify proficiency before providing a
pilot operating privileges and endorsements.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 14 CFR 61.31(e).
    \63\ 14 CFR 61.31(f) and (i).
    \64\ 14 CFR 61.31(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOBO and two individuals believed that the proposal would increase
the risk of gear up landings. LOBO asserted that the number one cause
of all Lancair accidents and incidents is failure to follow proper
procedures. An individual explained the need for pilots to be trained
on operations of retractable landing gear and the associated emergency
procedures. This individual emphasized that training in a TAA cannot
serve as a substitute.
    This final rule does not eliminate the requirement for a pilot to
receive training in complex airplane operations prior to acting as PIC
of a complex airplane. The amendment to Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) allows a
pilot to use a TAA as an alternative to a complex airplane to satisfy
the aeronautical experience specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii). However,
under Sec.  61.31(e), a pilot is still required to receive training in
a complex airplane and an endorsement from the authorized instructor
certifying that the pilot is proficient to operate a complex airplane
prior to acting as PIC of a complex airplane. An authorized instructor
is responsible for providing as much training time as necessary to
ensure a person is proficient before providing a complex airplane
endorsement. Therefore, the FAA does not expect the final rule to
result in an increase in gear up landings.
    LOBO cited a report by Tom Turner of the American Bonanza Society
that noted ``Tracking accident reports through other sources, I've
found that nearly 20 percent of all accidents in piston-powered,
retractable gear aeroplanes are gear-up landings. The U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) tells us there is an average of three
gear-up landings every week in the United States.'' (Turner, 2015).
LOBO stated that Turner also stated that landing gear related mishaps
cost the insurance industry (and the owners who pay premiums) nearly $1
million per month in claims or $12 million per year, far more than the
$1.6 million per year in savings proposed by the NPRM.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the cost savings
benefits allowing the use of TAAs would be about $9.7 million or $8
million in present value at a 7 percent discount rate. While the
commenter did not explain where he came up with $1.6 million, the
FAA assumes that the commenter divided $8 million by 5 years because
the FAA estimated the net quantifiable present value benefits over a
5 year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA reviewed the gear up landing statistics referenced by LOBO
and has determined, with the assistance of the National Transportation
Safety Board, that the gear up landing statistics are significantly
less than described, representative of mostly private operators, and
the majority of them not engaged in commercial operations. The NTSB
reported to the FAA that between January 2013 and June 2016 there were
a total of 59 gear-up incidents and accidents reported, and all but one
was operating under part 91 operating rules.\66\ Additionally, of the
59 reports, half were private pilots acting as PIC and 93% reported no
injuries. This information suggests that the cost of such incidents or
accidents is much lower and contradicts the LOBO's position and
referenced data. This would also reduce the insurance costs estimates
that LOBO references from Turner, and suggests that those costs are
also significantly lower. LOBO failed to provide how this third party
statistical data is captured, substantiated, or verified. In the NPRM,
the FAA determined that the cost savings benefits allowing the use of
TAA would be about $9.7 million or $8 million in present value at a 7
percent discount rate. This was based on half of all initial single
engine commercial pilot applicants (based on the number of certificates
issued in previous years) using a TAA aircraft for training and on the
practical test. This also included cost savings associated with those
who would train and use a TAA for the flight instructor airplane
practical test.\67\ The FAA believes this is a very conservative
estimate and it is likely that more than half will take advantage of
using a less expensive TAA airplane for the commercial pilot experience
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ NTSB data available at https://app.ntsb.gov/avdata/ or
contact the National Transportation Safety Board at<PHONE_NUMBER> and
ask to be transferred to the Safety Research and Statistical
Analysis Division and request a query of the database.
    \67\ 81 FR 29719, May 12, 2016 (and the associated regulatory
evaluation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOBO disagreed with the FAA's position that there are certain
challenges with availability, maintenance and cost of complex
airplanes. Specifically, LOBO stated that the FAA's position that
airplanes with retractable landing gear are unavailable for purchase,
expensive to maintain, and are not equipped with glass cockpits, is
false. LOBO noted that it is aware of at least one retractable gear
airplane with a Garmin G500 cockpit and that there are single engine
retractable gear airplanes suitable for flight training available at
affordable prices, but did not provide any specific data. One
individual acknowledged the higher maintenance costs for complex
airplanes, but also noted the higher acquisition costs for TAAs. This
individual explained that there is little cost difference to the
student because the equally high maintenance and acquisition costs are
passed on to the renter. Another individual believed that the initial
acquisition costs for TAAs makes the cost of training in TAA far
greater than in complex airplanes.
    Based on public comment, the GAMA shipment database, and discussion
with large general aviation organizations, the current fleet of
available complex airplanes is decreasing. Many commenters describe
limited or no availability of complex airplanes for rent. New
production of these types of complex airplanes used for initial flight
training is at an all-time low,\68\ and maintenance costs for many of
those older complex airplanes is steadily increasing. As noted
previously, other commenters discussed the difficulty of obtaining
parts and the associated cost. Additionally, the FAA never stated that
complex airplanes do not have glass cockpits. The LOBO statement
describing a new complex airplane with a G500 glass cockpit at an
affordable cost is contradictory to the current understanding of the
high cost for such complex airplanes. Also, the commenter's reference
to higher acquisition costs for TAA fails to take into account that the
acquisition cost for a retractable gear airplane of the same year of
production as a TAA aircraft, is also equally expensive if not more so

than a TAA.\69\ It may be true that there are older less expensive
complex airplanes available, but again, the limited availability,
difficulty of obtaining parts and the cost associated with maintenance
and refurbishing these older aircraft, makes their use cost
prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The General Aviation Manufacturers Association website
shows Cessna has not produced a piston engine retractable gear
airplane since 1985 and Piper has produced only 28 piston engine
airplanes with retractable gear since 2008 (16 being the Piper Arrow
model). Production for Beechcraft is also at an all-time low for
piston single engine airplanes with retractable gear.
    \69\ See www.controller.com (listing the price of a 2017 C-172
with G1000 equipment (non-complex) at $403,295 on June 15, 2017);
SkyTech Piper Dealer (quoting the price of a 2017 Piper Arrow
(complex) at $466,880 on June 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also received comments on ensuring the flight instructor
providing the training in a complex airplane or TAA is qualified to
provide the training. Specifically, SAFE recommended the FAA amend
Sec.  61.195 to require a flight instructor to have at least 10 hours
of PIC time in a complex airplane prior to giving instruction in a
complex airplane and at least 10 hours of PIC time in a TAA prior to
giving instruction in a TAA. An individual also recommended requiring
flight instructors to have 10 hours of PIC time in a complex airplane.
    The FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to obtain a minimum of
10 hours as PIC in a complex airplane prior to instructing in a complex
airplane. As discussed previously, the FAA finds that the current
training and endorsement requirement to act as PIC of a complex
airplane as set forth in Sec.  61.31, in conjunction with the flight
instructor's demonstrated knowledge of the fundamentals of instruction,
is sufficient to ensure that this type of training is provided
effectively. Furthermore, the ability to provide training in a complex
airplane without having been evaluated on a practical test is
consistent with other Sec.  61.31 endorsements, including high
performance aircraft, tailwheel aircraft, and high altitude operations.
    Additionally, the FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to
obtain 10 hours as PIC in a TAA prior to instructing in a TAA. The
proposal was intended only to introduce commercial pilot candidates to
TAAs. Flight instructors are currently permitted to provide flight
training in airplanes with glass-cockpits without having to receive any
specific amount of training in the aircraft. Therefore, allowing a
flight instructor to provide flight instruction in a TAA without first
receiving extensive training in the TAA will not result in a decreased
level of safety. Flight instructors have the responsibility of ensuring
their familiarity with an aircraft prior to providing flight
instruction in that aircraft.
    Furthermore, since the NPRM, the FAA has determined that the
requirement in Sec.  61.129(b)(3)(ii) that a seaplane have flaps and a
controllable pitch propeller has not been updated to reflect the
revised definition of ``complex airplane'' in Sec.  61.1. In 2011, the
FAA amended the definition of ``complex airplane'' to include airplanes
and seaplanes equipped with a full authority digital engine control
(FADEC).\70\ The FAA is, therefore, adding language to Sec.
61.129(b)(3)(ii) to accommodate seaplanes equipped with a FADEC
consistent with the definition of complex airplane in Sec.  61.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Final Rule, ``Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other
Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification Rules, 76 FR
54095, 54101 (Aug. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor Practical Test
Standards
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the commercial pilot single
engine airplane practical test standards (PTS) to permit the use of a
TAA in place of a complex or turbine-powered airplane during the
initial practical test.\71\ The FAA also proposed to revise the flight
instructor single engine airplane PTS to permit the flight instructor
applicant to use a TAA during the initial practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Prior to this final rule, the commercial pilot PTS for
airplane required a pilot to use a complex or turbine-powered
airplane for takeoff and landing maneuvers and appropriate emergency
tasks for the initial practical test for a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane category. Similarly, the flight
instructor PTS for airplane required an instructor candidate to use
a complex airplane for the performance of takeoff and landing
maneuvers as well as appropriate emergency procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA supported the proposed changes to the commercial pilot and
flight instructor PTS because they are necessary to carry out the
proposed amendments to Sec.  61.129(c)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part
141.
    UND recommended the FAA not require an applicant to use a TAA for
the flight instructor practical test. UND described that, according to
the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS, the TAA would be
needed for ``takeoff and landing maneuvers as well as appropriate
emergency procedures'' and questioned why a two axis autopilot is
needed to demonstrate proficiency for takeoff and landings in a VFR
traffic pattern. UND suggested that this PTS requirement should be
removed from a PTS that focuses on VFR maneuvers. UND requested the
removal of both the complex airplane and the TAA airplane requirement
from the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS.
    Upon further review, the FAA decided not to revise the commercial
pilot airman certification standards (ACS) and flight instructor PTS to
include the option to use a TAA during the commercial pilot (single-
engine airplane) or flight instructor (single-engine airplane)
practical tests.\72\ Instead, the FAA removed from the commercial pilot
ACS the requirement to provide a complex or turbine powered airplane
for the initial practical test.\73\ Additionally, the FAA removed from
the flight instructor PTS the requirement to provide a complex airplane
for the practical test.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The FAA is in the process of replacing the practical test
standards (PTS) with the airman certification standards (ACS).
    \73\ Notice N 8900.463, Use of a Complex Airplane During a
Commercial Pilot or Flight Instructor Practical Test (Apr. 24, 2018)
(outlining a change in policy regarding the testing of applicants
for a commercial pilot or flight instructor certificate), available
at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.463.pdf.
The FAA no longer requires applicants for a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to provide a
complex or turbine-powered airplane for the associated practical
test. Id.
    \74\ The FAA no longer requires applicants for a flight
instructor certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to
provide a complex airplane for the practical test. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the NPRM, there are far fewer single engine complex
airplanes available to meet the ACS requirement, and the single engine
complex airplanes that are available are older aircraft that are
expensive to maintain. Revising the airmen certification standards to
include the option to use a TAA for the commercial pilot and flight
instructor practical tests would have alleviated some of the cost,
maintenance and production issues associated with single engine complex
airplanes. However, the FAA found that removing the ACS requirements to
furnish a complex or turbine powered airplane achieves the same
objectives. Additionally, the FAA determined that removing these ACS/
PTS requirements, rather than adding the option to use a TAA, more
significantly reduces costs for persons pursuing a commercial pilot or
flight instructor certificate by allowing applicants to utilize less
expensive airplanes on the practical test that are not turbine driven,
complex, or technically advanced. Furthermore, the FAA found that no
longer requiring a complex airplane to be furnished for the initial
commercial pilot or flight instructor practical test will not result in
a decreased level of safety. Airplanes provided for the practical test
will be less complex, newer, and not as likely to fail due to
mechanical and maintenance issues associated with older single engine
complex airplanes. Additionally, prior to operating as PIC of a complex
airplane, a pilot is still required to receive flight training and an
endorsement from an authorized

instructor certifying his or her proficiency in a complex airplane.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 14 CFR 61.31(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA concluded that any airplane may be used to accomplish the
tasks described in the commercial pilot (single-engine) ACS or flight
instructor (single-engine) PTS, provided that aircraft is capable of
accomplishing all areas of operation required for the practical test
and is the appropriate category and class for the rating sought.\76\
Therefore, the aircraft used for the practical test must still meet the
requirements specified in Sec.  61.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 14 CFR 61.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Flight Instructors With Instrument Ratings Only

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.195(b) and (c) to
allow a flight instructor who holds only an instrument-airplane or
instrument-helicopter rating on his or her flight instructor
certificate to conduct instrument training.\77\ As proposed, the flight
instructor and the pilot receiving instrument training would both have
been required to hold category and class ratings on their pilot
certificates that are applicable to the aircraft in which the
instrument training is accomplished. Therefore, under this proposal,
the flight instructor would no longer have been required to hold the
appropriate category and class ratings in addition to the instrument
rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Section 61.195 sets forth the limitations and
qualifications for flight instructors. Prior to this final rule,
under Sec.  61.195(b), an instructor could not conduct flight
training in any aircraft for which the instructor did not hold a
pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
applicable category and class ratings for the aircraft in which the
training was provided. Additionally, under Sec.  61.195(c), a flight
instructor who provided instrument training for the issuance of an
instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the
instrument training required for commercial pilot and ATP
certificates was required to hold an instrument rating on his or her
pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate that was
appropriate to the category and class of aircraft used for the
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received four comments on this proposal. Three commenters
supported the proposed changes to Sec.  61.195(b) and (c); one
individual opposed them.
    American Flyers stated that if an instrument instructor holds the
appropriate category and class on his or her commercial pilot
certificate, he or she has already demonstrated proficiency on the
tasks required for the commercial practical test. Eagle Sport stated
that instrument procedures are standard across the board and instrument
instructors should be qualified to teach them. One individual believed
that removing the requirement of category and class for instrument
instructors makes absolute sense and instrument flying and the
regulations are the same no matter what aircraft is being flown.
    The FAA recognizes that instrument procedures are fundamentally
consistent within a particular category of aircraft and that the same
instrument flight rules apply in the NAS regardless of what aircraft is
being flown. However, upon further review, the FAA has determined that
a flight instructor who does not possess an airplane category
multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
has not been trained and tested on giving instruction in a multiengine
airplane, specifically instruction on one-engine inoperative tasks. The
Flight Instructor Instrument Practical Test Standards (PTS) are not the
same for single-engine and multiengine airplanes because the PTS
contains two tasks that are specific to multiengine airplanes.\78\ If
an applicant is completing the flight instructor instrument practical
test in a multiengine airplane, the standards direct the examiner to
have the applicant perform at least one of the following tasks: (1) An
engine failure during straight-and-level flight and turns (Task IX. C);
or (2) an instrument approach with one engine inoperative (Task IX.
D).\79\ Similarly, the Flight Instructor Airplane PTS contains
additional tasks for persons completing the practical test in a
multiengine airplane, including tasks related to operating a
multiengine airplane with one engine inoperative. Therefore, a flight
instructor who holds an instrument rating and an airplane category
multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
has been trained and tested on conducting training in a multiengine
airplane to include one-engine inoperative maneuvers and/or approaches.
The FAA emphasizes that an initial flight instructor candidate who
completes a flight instructor instrument-airplane rating practical test
in a single engine airplane has not been trained and tested on
providing instruction in a multiengine airplane to include these one-
engine inoperative tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT Practical Test Standards for
AIRPLANE and HELICOPTER, FAA-S-8081-9D with Changes 1 & 2, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (July
2010). In ``IX. Area of Operation: Emergency Operations,'' the FAA
notes that ``[t]he examiner shall omit TASKS C and D unless the
applicant furnishes a multiengine airplane for the practical test,
then TASK C or D is mandatory.''
    \79\ The Flight Instructor Instrument PTS does not contain
separate tasks for applicants completing the practical test in a
multiengine helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interest of safety, the FAA has determined that, in order to
provide instrument instruction in a multiengine airplane competently
and safely, the flight instructor must have been trained and tested on
giving instruction in a multiengine airplane including instruction on
one-engine inoperative tasks. Any task required for the multiengine
airplane rating has the potential for becoming a single engine
operation. Verification of flight instructor proficiency in teaching
emergency scenarios such as a loss of an engine during multiengine
operations ensures that flight instructors can successfully mitigate
such risk and safely provide instrument training in multiengine
airplanes.
    Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.195(c) by adding
new paragraph (c)(2), which requires a flight instructor who possesses
an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate to
also possess an airplane category multiengine class rating on his or
her flight instructor certificate when conducting instrument training
in a multiengine airplane.\80\ Section 61.195(c)(1) contains the
proposed requirement, which has been revised to apply only to flight
instructors giving instrument instruction in aircraft other than
multiengine airplanes. Thus, Sec.  61.195(c)(1) allows an instrument-
only flight instructor to conduct instrument training in an aircraft
(other than multiengine airplanes) provided the instructor and the
pilot receiving instrument training hold category and class ratings on
their pilot certificates that are applicable to the aircraft in which
the instrument training is accomplished.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Section 61.195(c)(2) requires a flight instructor
conducting instrument training in a multiengine airplane to meet the
requirements of Sec.  61.195(b), which requires the flight
instructor to hold the applicable category and class rating on his
or her flight instructor certificate.
    \81\ As the FAA noted in the NPRM, the powered-lift category
does not contain any corresponding class ratings, on either a pilot
certificate or flight instructor certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is also revising Sec.  61.195(e) to clarify that a flight
instructor may not give instrument training in an aircraft that
requires the PIC to hold a type rating unless the flight instructor
holds a type rating for that aircraft on his or her pilot certificate.
While this revision was not proposed in the NPRM, flight instruction
includes instrument training; \82\ therefore, former Sec.  61.195(e)

would have applied to flight instructors conducting instrument training
under paragraph (c). The FAA is revising paragraph (e) only for
clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Under Sec.  61.1, ``Instrument training'' means that time
in which instrument training is received from an authorized
instructor under actual or simulated conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual, who is identified as a flight instructor, believed
that an instrument-only flight instructor may not possess the skills
necessary to manipulate the aircraft if the pilot flying loses control
of the aircraft. The commenter further stated that instrument-only
flight instructors do not have to demonstrate stalls or spin
proficiency on the practical test, and described observing many pilots
on instrument proficiency checks incorrectly recovering from an unusual
attitude training event pushing the aircraft closer to a stall/spin
scenario.
    For the reasons explained above, the FAA agrees that an instrument-
only flight instructor may not possess the skills needed to conduct
instrument training in a multiengine airplane and is revising proposed
Sec.  61.195(c) accordingly. However, the FAA believes that a flight
instructor with only an instrument-airplane rating or instrument-
helicopter rating possesses the skills necessary to conduct instrument
training in an aircraft (other than a multiengine airplane). The Flight
Instructor Instrument Airplane and Helicopter PTS states that examiners
shall place special emphasis upon areas of aircraft operations
considered critical to flight safety, including positive aircraft
control, stall/spin awareness, and other areas deemed appropriate to
any phase of the practical test.\83\ Additionally, because Sec.
61.195(c)(1) requires the flight instructor and the pilot receiving the
instrument training to hold on their pilot certificates the appropriate
category and class ratings in advance of the instrument training, both
the instructor and the applicant will have already been found
proficient in stall prevention, recognition, and recovery for the
aircraft in which the instrument training will be accomplished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT Practical Test Standards for
AIRPLANE and HELICOPTER, FAA-S-8081-9D with Changes 1 & 2, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (July
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the FAA is revising and restructuring proposed Sec.
61.195(b) for clarity. Proposed Sec.  61.195(b)(2) would have required
the flight instructor to hold a pilot certificate with a type rating,
if appropriate. The FAA finds that this language could have been
interpreted as requiring the flight instructor to hold a type rating,
which was not the FAA's intent. Prior to this final rule, Sec.
61.195(b) required a flight instructor to hold a type rating only if
appropriate. The FAA did not propose to change this requirement.
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.195(b) to require the
flight instructor to hold a flight instructor certificate appropriate
to category and class; to hold a pilot certificate; and to meet the
requirements of Sec.  61.195(e), if applicable. Section 61.195(e)
requires a flight instructor to hold a type rating on his or her pilot
certificate if the aircraft requires the PIC to hold a type rating.
    The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to be consistent with the
flight instructor privileges and limitations associated with this rule.
Additionally, these instructor privileges and limitations described for
instrument training in an aircraft will also be applicable to training
credits permitted when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 14 CFR 61.65(h) and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight Instructors

1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add new Sec.  61.412 to authorize
a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to provide training on
control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments to sport
pilot applicants receiving flight training for the purpose of solo
cross-country requirements in an airplane that has a Vh
greater than 87 knots CAS.\85\ Because a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating is not evaluated on this instructional knowledge, the FAA
proposed to require a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to
receive training and an endorsement from a flight instructor
certificated under subpart H that affirms the flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating has been found competent and is qualified to provide
flight training on tasks and maneuvers performed solely by reference to
the flight instruments.\86\ Proposed Sec.  61.412(b) would have
required the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive a
minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3 hours of flight training in
an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS or in a FFS
or FTD that replicates an airplane with a Vh greater than 87
knots CAS.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Prior to this final rule, a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating was not allowed to provide training on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. However, sport
pilot applicants are required to receive this training for the
purpose of solo cross-country requirements in an airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12).
Therefore, prior to this final rule, sport pilot applicants were
required to obtain this training from a flight instructor
certificated under subpart H of part 61.
    \86\ A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not
required to receive this endorsement. The endorsement will only be
required if the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating seeks
the privilege of providing training to sport pilot applicants on
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments.
    \87\ Private pilot applicants have a similar requirement under
Sec.  61.109(a)(3) that requires 3 hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight altitudes, radio communications, and
the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services
appropriate to instrument flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also proposed to revise Sec.  61.415 by adding a new
paragraph (h) to clarify that a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating may not conduct flight training on control and maneuvering an
aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in an airplane that has
a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS without meeting the
requirements in proposed Sec.  61.412. Additionally, the FAA proposed
to revise Sec.  91.109(c) to permit a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating who has obtained the endorsement proposed in Sec.  61.412
to serve as a safety pilot only for the purpose of providing flight
training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the
instruments to a sport pilot applicant seeking a solo cross country
endorsement in an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots
CAS.
    The FAA received six comments regarding this proposal. All
commenters supported the FAA allowing flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating to provide training to sport pilot applicants on control
and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments. However,
each commenter expressed concern and offered revisions to proposed
Sec.  61.412.
    AOPA, Chesapeake Sport Pilot (2 individuals), and one individual
recommended the FAA except flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
who also hold at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine
airplane rating from the proposed Sec.  61.412 training requirement.
    The FAA is not providing an exception to the training and
endorsement requirements of Sec.  61.412 for flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating who also possess a private pilot certificate or
higher. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, Sec.  61.412(b) involves
flight training for the purpose of giving instruction on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. While a person who
holds at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine
airplane rating has received three hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control

and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments
pursuant to Sec.  61.109(a)(3), he or she has not received training
specific to ``giving instruction'' on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the instruments. Therefore, the training requirements of
Sec.  61.412(b) are not duplicative to Sec.  61.109(a)(3).
    Eagle Sport LLC commented that requiring a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating to obtain additional instruction and an endorsement
in order to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the flight instruments is needlessly cumbersome. One
individual commenter suggested that an endorsement may be sufficient
(without the need for a specific training time requirement).
    The FAA is requiring a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
to receive and log a minimum of one hour of ground training and three
hours of flight training, as proposed. As stated in the NPRM,\88\ the
basic instrument flight training should involve flight training for the
purpose of giving instruction on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the flight instruments, including straight and level
flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and air traffic
control directives.\89\ Therefore, Sec.  61.412(c) requires a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive training for the
purpose of giving instruction on the tasks specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12), as proposed. The FAA believes that a minimum amount of
training time on the tasks specified in Sec.  61.412(c) and an
endorsement certifying proficiency in those tasks are necessary to
ensure that a flight instructor with only a sport pilot rating has the
experience, proficiency, and skills necessary to provide his or her
sport pilot students with the training and skills required to safely
operate a light-sport aircraft solely by reference to the flight
instruments.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 81 FR at 29734.
    \89\ 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12).
    \90\ Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and limitations of
a person who holds a sport pilot certificate. Under Sec.  61.315(c),
a person who holds a sport pilot certificate may not act as PIC of a
light sport aircraft when the flight or surface visibility is less
than 3 statute miles, or without visual reference to the surface.
The FAA notes that receiving flight instruction on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments does not
give a sport pilot privileges to operate contrary to the limitations
established in Sec.  61.315(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFE agreed that a one-time endorsement is appropriate, but
asserted that the minimum training requirement is insufficient. SAFE
recommended that the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be
required to demonstrate all the tasks described in the Private Pilot
ACS Area VIII, Task F.
    The FAA disagrees with SAFE's assertion. The training and
subsequent endorsement that will be provided to the flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating is not meant to be a practical test and
should not be treated as such. The instructor providing the training
can make the determination of competency without referencing the PTS
standards. The training and endorsement required under Sec.  61.412 is
similar in nature to the other training and endorsements instructors
provide, such as for high performance, complex, or tailwheel airplanes.
    SAFE also stated that it is unclear what ``use of radio aids and
ATC directives'' means under proposed Sec.  61.412(c). To more clearly
define it, SAFE suggested referencing the ``Private Pilot ACS Area
VIII, Task F, Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and
Radar Services'' instead.
    Because Sec.  61.412(c) requires the flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating to receive an endorsement certifying that the instructor
is proficient in providing the flight training specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12), the FAA is describing the flight training in Sec.
61.412(c) by using language that mirrors the language of Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Thus, the language ``use of radio aids and ATC
directives'' does not introduce a new concept into the regulations. It
has been used in 14 CFR 61.93 since 1997.\91\ Flight instructors
authorized under subpart H of part 61 have been conducting the flight
training required by Sec.  61.93, which includes ``use of radio aids
and ATC directives,'' for over 20 years. The FAA believes the phrase
``use of radio aids and ATC directives'' is sufficiently clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Final Rule, ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor,
and Pilot School Certification Rules,'' 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFE also stated that it is unclear what type of instructor would
be authorized under subpart H. SAFE questioned if this should be any
flight instructor that meets the appropriate category and class
requirement, an instrument flight instructor, or an instructor who
meets the requirements to provide instruction for an initial flight
instructor certificate applicant. SAFE suggested the training be
provided by an instructor with substantial experience who also meets
the requirements to provide training for the initial flight instructor
certificate.
    The FAA intended for any flight instructor authorized under subpart
H to provide the requisite training and endorsement to a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating. However, in its own continued
review of the NPRM, the FAA discovered that the express language of
Sec.  61.195(c) would have prohibited an instrument-only flight
instructor from providing flight training on the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight
instruments. As explained in the NPRM, a subpart H instructor is
instrument rated and knowledgeable on the appropriate techniques for
safely accomplishing flight by reference to the flight instruments.
Because flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to the flight instruments is not instrument
training, it may be provided by a flight instructor who does not hold
an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.\92\
The FAA, therefore, concludes that a flight instructor who holds an
instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate that is
appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is provided should
also be allowed to provide flight training on the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight
instruments. Accordingly, the FAA is adding new paragraph (l) to Sec.
61.195 to expressly allow an instrument-only instructor to provide this
training notwithstanding Sec.  61.195(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Scott Rohlfing from Lorelei
Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Feb 24,
2016); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Jan. 4,
2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (July 6,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA understands that a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating has already demonstrated proficiency in the fundamentals of
instruction and course development. A flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating is evaluated and then qualified on the fundamentals of
flight instruction before receiving a flight instructor
certificate.\93\ That same flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
will then receive additional training from a flight instructor
authorized under subpart H, specific to giving instruction on control
and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. The FAA
believes this will enable the flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating to provide the training under Sec.  61.93(e)(12) effectively and
safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ FAA-S-8081-29 SPORT PILOT Practical Test Standards for
Flight Instructor Pg. 4-13, I. AREA OF OPERATION: FUNDAMENTALS OF
INSTRUCTING.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA recommended the FAA revise proposed Sec.  61.412(b) to allow
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to receive the required
three hours of flight training in an ATD. AOPA explained

that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who holds an
endorsement under Sec.  61.327(b) has already been found proficient in
an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
Additionally, because the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
and the sport pilot student will not be rated to fly under IFR, all the
training to be conducted under proposed Sec. Sec.  61.412 and
61.93(e)(12) will be performed under simulated instrument
meteorological conditions, not actual instrument meteorological
conditions. Lastly, AOPA also stated that limitations on the use of
certain ATDs being used for this type of flight training can be imposed
by the LOA process when the FAA evaluates and approves an ATD.
    The FAA recognizes that proposed Sec.  61.412(b) would have allowed
the three hours of flight training to be conducted in an airplane with
a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS, or in a FFS or FTD that
replicated an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
The FAA did not intend to preclude the use of ATDs under this
provision. Because ATDs are currently permitted to satisfy training
requirements for the instrument rating and recency, the FAA finds that
they should also be allowed to satisfy the flight training requirements
of Sec.  61.412(b). Accordingly, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.
61.412(b) to also allow the use of ATDs, as AOPA recommended.
    AOPA also recommended clarifying changes to proposed Sec.  61.412.
First, AOPA recommended revising the proposed rule language to clarify
that the solo cross-country endorsement is not issued pursuant to Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Rather, the required flight training maneuvers and
procedures are listed under Sec.  61.93(e)(12). Second, AOPA stated
that Sec.  61.327 requires two different endorsements. AOPA recommended
referencing Sec.  61.327(b), rather than Sec.  61.327 in its entirety,
because paragraph (b) requires the endorsement for sport pilots who
want to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a Vh greater
than 87 knots CAS.
    The FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.412 to clarify that the
flight training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments is provided under Sec.  61.93(e)(12), and
the solo cross-country endorsement is issued under Sec.  61.93(c)(1).
Additionally, the FAA is using the phrase ``student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate,'' rather than the proposed term ``sport pilot
applicant,'' because it more accurately describes the pilots who must
obtain the solo-cross country endorsement under Sec.  61.93(c)(1). The
phrase ``student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate'' is also
consistent with the terminology that exists in current Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Furthermore, the FAA is referencing Sec.  61.327(b) for
the reasons identified by AOPA.
    Eagle Sport LLC expressed concern with requiring student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive training on flight solely
by reference to the flight instruments as part of training for cross-
country flight if operating a light sport airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
    This requirement has existed since February 1, 2010.\94\ The NPRM
did not propose any changes to this requirement; therefore, Eagle Sport
LLC's comments on this provision are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of
Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilot, 75 FR
5204 (Feb. 1, 2010). The FAA removed the training requirement for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive training
in the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to
flight instruments prior to conducting solo cross-country flight in
an aircraft other than airplanes with a VH greater than
87 knots CAS. 75 FR at 5211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended the FAA add instrument time to the
requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. The FAA
is not adopting this recommendation. The FAA finds it unnecessary to
require a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to obtain
instrument training because a sport pilot may not operate when the
flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles, or without
visual reference to the surface.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 14 CFR 61.315(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that Sec. Sec.  61.415 and 91.109 remain unchanged
from the NPRM. The FAA also notes that it will revise AC 61-65F to
include the appropriate endorsement language that can be used when
authorizing a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating.
2. Credit for Training Obtained as a Sport Pilot
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.99 and add new
Sec.  61.109(l) to allow a portion of the flight training received from
a sport pilot instructor who does not also hold a flight instructor
certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H to be credited
toward a portion of the flight training requirements for a recreational
or private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-
than-air categories.\96\ The FAA proposed that any training received
from a sport pilot instructor that would be credited must be completed
in an aircraft appropriate to the category and class rating for the
recreational or private pilot certificate sought.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Under Sec.  61.51(h), a person may log training time when
that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an
aircraft, FFS, or FTD. A sport pilot instructor is not authorized to
conduct training for a recreational pilot certificate or a private
pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, glider, or lighter-
than-air category ratings. 14 CFR 61.413. Therefore, prior to this
final rule, under Sec.  61.51(h), a pilot could not count flight
training received from a flight instructor with only a sport pilot
rating (subpart K instructor) towards the training requirements for
a recreational pilot certificate or private pilot certificate with
category ratings other than powered parachute and weight-shift
control aircraft.
    \97\ For the airplane category single engine class, the FAA
proposed to allow 10 hours of sport pilot training to be credited
toward the 15 hours of training required for a recreational pilot
certificate and toward the 20 hours of training required for the
private pilot certificate. For the rotorcraft category gyroplane
class, the FAA proposed to allow 10 hours of sport pilot training to
be credited toward the 15 hours of training required for the
recreational pilot certificate and toward the 20 hours of training
required for the private pilot certificate. For the lighter-than-air
category airship class, the FAA proposed to allow 12.5 hours of
sport pilot training to be credited toward the 25 hours of training
required for the private pilot certificate. For the lighter-than-air
category balloon class, the FAA proposed to allow 5 hours of sport
pilot training, including 3 training flights with an authorized
instructor, to be credited toward the 10 hours of flight training,
including 6 training flights with an authorized instructor, required
for a private pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, the FAA considered allowing all training
received from a sport pilot instructor to be credited by an applicant
seeking a recreational or private pilot certificate. An applicant would
still be required to obtain a minimum of three hours of training in
preparation for the practical test (within the preceding 2 calendar
months) from a flight instructor under subpart H,\98\ as well as be
endorsed by a flight instructor under subpart H as being prepared for
the required practical test. The FAA sought public comment, and any
associated data, on this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), and (g)(3). The FAA notes,
however, that a person who applies for a private pilot certificate
with a lighter-than-air category and balloon class rating is
required to obtain a minimum of 2 hours in preparation for the
practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month
of the test. 14 CFR 61.109(h)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 13 comments on this proposal. Twelve commenters
supported the proposed rule changes; one commenter opposed them.
    EAA, AOPA, one individual, and two commenters writing on behalf of
Chesapeake Sport Pilot recommended that all the training time received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be allowed for
credit for the recreational or private pilot certificate. Both EAA and
AOPA indicated that the same fundamental knowledge is required for the
sport pilot certificate as other pilot certificates, that many of the
flight training requirements and tasks

are the same, and that the credit limit does not provide a safety
benefit. AOPA stated there are sufficient safeguards in place,
including subpart H instructor training and endorsements, to ensure
that a sport pilot will be properly qualified for the recreational or
private pilot certificate and to ensure there is not a reduction in
proficiency or safety. EAA and one individual stated that a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating is equally capable of providing
instruction on the areas common to the sport, recreational, and private
pilot certificates as a subpart H instructor. Several commenters,
including EAA, noted how the proposal would lower the cost and provide
a viable path for those pursuing higher certificates. One individual
supported the proposal, noting how the current regulations imply that a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is less qualified than a
subpart H instructor.
    After review of the comments and further analysis, the FAA has
decided to allow all training received from a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating to be credited by an applicant seeking a
recreational or private pilot certificate. The FAA recognizes that an
applicant for a sport pilot certificate must complete flight training
on many of the same areas of operation required for a recreational or
private pilot certificate.\99\ Additionally, as explained in the NPRM,
many of the tasks and maneuvers outlined in the practical test
standards for a sport pilot are the same as those outlined in the
practical test standards for recreational or private pilot.\100\ In
fact, these areas of operation must be performed to identical
proficiency standards.\101\ Therefore, the FAA believes that all
training received as a sport pilot candidate is relative to the
aeronautical experience required for a higher certificate. Accordingly,
the FAA is not going to limit the sport pilot training that may be
credited toward a higher certificate to a prescriptive number of hours.
The FAA notes, however, that sport pilots applying for a higher
certificate are still required to complete all the requirements for the
specific certificate or rating sought, which includes additional
training provided by a subpart H instructor and successful completion
of the knowledge test and practical test.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 81 FR at 29735.
    \100\ Id.
    \101\ Id.
    \102\ Sections 61.99 and 61.109 contain the aeronautical
experience requirements for recreational and private pilot
certificates, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, before receiving solo cross-country privileges, all
student pilots pursuing a sport pilot (in airplanes with a
Vh greater than 87 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS)),
recreational pilot, or private pilot certificate in a single engine
airplane must receive the training specified in Sec.  61.93(e)(12) that
includes control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight
instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents,
climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives. In recognition that
these training tasks are similar to the ones described in Sec.
61.109(a)(3), which requires ``control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the
use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services'', the FAA will
allow training tasks described in Sec.  61.93(e)(12) provided to a
sport pilot candidate by a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating,
to be credited toward the private pilot training requirements specified
in Sec.  61.109(a)(3). This training credit will only be applicable if
the training was provided by a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating who has received the training and endorsement required by Sec.
61.412.\103\ However, the FAA has identified that the requirement for
training specific to ``recovery from unusual attitudes'' specified in
Sec.  61.109(a)(3) must be accomplished by a subpart H instructor.
Sport pilot candidates are not required to receive training on recovery
from unusual attitudes under Sec.  61.93(e)(12). Therefore, Sec.
61.412, which allows flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to
provide the flight training under Sec.  61.93(e)(12) provided the
training and endorsement requirements are satisfied, does not require
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to receive training from a
subpart H instructor on recovery from unusual attitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ The FAA is adopting new Sec.  61.412 in this final rule.
Section 61.412 allows a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
to provide flight training under Sec.  61.93(e)(12) on control and
maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the flight
instruments for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country
endorsement under Sec.  61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate, provided the flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating holds an endorsement required by Sec.  61.327(b), has
received and logged the required training specified in Sec.
61.412(b) from an authorized instructor, and has received a one-time
endorsement from a flight instructor authorized under subpart H who
certifies that the person is proficient in providing training on
control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments in an
airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. See Section
III.E.1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege of this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate is not tested on
basic instrument maneuvers during the sport pilot practical test.\104\
However, the holder of a sport pilot certificate who seeks a private
pilot certificate will be required under Sec.  61.109(a)(4) to receive
3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane with a flight
instructor authorized under subpart H in preparation for the private
pilot practical test. Because a large portion of the Private Pilot ACS
requires a demonstration of basic instrument flight maneuvers, a flight
instructor under subpart H must observe an applicant's proficiency
before endorsing the student pilot for the private pilot practical
test.\105\ As such, even though a sport pilot may credit basic
instrument flight training received from a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating toward Sec.  61.109(a)(3), an applicant for a
private pilot certificate will likely receive as part of the training
required by Sec.  61.109(a)(4) a substantial amount of flight training
from a subpart H flight instructor on basic instrument flight
maneuvers, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed
climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight
attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/
facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight.
Furthermore, a designated pilot examiner (DPE) will observe and test
the private pilot candidate on these basic instrument maneuvers
according to the proficiency standards in the private pilot ACS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Sport Pilot Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-29 Change
1, 2 and 3).
    \105\ 14 CFR 61.103(f), and Private Pilot Certification
Standards (FAA-S-ACS-6A Change 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA agrees with AOPA that sufficient safeguards are in place to
prevent any reduction in safety, including the additional training and
recommendations \106\ required and provided by a subpart H instructor
and the requirement for the applicant to pass a knowledge test and
practical test to the standards specified for that grade of
certificate. These safeguards would also include any additional
training not provided by a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
that is explicit to the recreational or private pilot certificate.\107\
As previously stated, an applicant is also required to receive at least
3 hours of training in preparation for the practical test (within 2
calendar

months preceding the month of application) from a flight instructor
qualified under subpart H.\108\ This includes an endorsement from the
flight instructor certifying that the applicant received training on
the applicable areas of operation for the certificate sought and is
prepared for the practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Authorized instructor recommendations include signing the
applicant's pilot logbook record and airman application certifying
he or she is prepared and qualified for the test.
    \107\ For example, an applicant for a private pilot certificate
will still be required to receive night training and additional
cross-country training requirements. 14 CFR 61.109.
    \108\ 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), (g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising Sec.  61.99
and adding new paragraph (l) to Sec.  61.109 to allow all flight
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to
be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements of
Sec. Sec.  61.99 and 61.109, provided certain conditions are met. The
FAA notes that proposed Sec.  61.109(l) would have allowed only a
certain amount of sport pilot training to be credited toward the
private pilot certificate based on the specific aircraft category and
class rating sought. Because the FAA is now allowing all sport pilot
training to be credited, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.109(l)
to no longer differentiate credit based on specific aircraft categories
and classes and to clarify the conditions under which a sport pilot may
credit sport pilot training toward a private pilot certificate.
Therefore, new Sec.  61.109(l) allows the holder of a sport pilot
certificate to credit flight training received from a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience
requirements of Sec.  61.109 if the conditions specified in paragraphs
(l)(1) through (3) are satisfied.
    Section 61.109(l)(1) requires the flight training to be
accomplished in the same category and class of aircraft for which the
rating is sought. This requirement is consistent with the NPRM, which
stated that any training received from a sport pilot instructor that
would be credited under this rule must be completed in an aircraft
appropriate to the category and class rating for the recreational or
private pilot certificate sought.\109\ Section 61.109(l)(2) requires
the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to be authorized to
provide the flight training. This requirement is consistent with the
NPRM, which explained that the FAA was not proposing to expand the
privileges of a flight instructor who holds only a sport pilot
rating,\110\ other than as discussed in section III.E.1 of this
preamble.\111\ The FAA emphasizes that flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating are still subject to the privileges and limitations of
their flight instructor certificate.\112\ Therefore, a flight
instructor with a sport pilot certificate is not authorized to provide
flight training under subpart H to a recreational or private pilot
candidate. Lastly, paragraph (l)(3) requires the flight training to
include either: (i) Training on areas of operation that are required
for both a sport pilot certificate and a private pilot certificate; or
(ii) training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by
reference to the flight instruments, provided the training was received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who holds an
endorsement required by Sec.  61.412(c). The FAA finds that new
paragraph (l)(3)(i) is consistent with the NPRM, which explained that
the FAA was proposing to allow sport pilot training to be credited
toward the flight training requirements of a recreational or private
pilot certificate because of the common areas of operation and
proficiency standards in flight training for sport pilots, recreational
pilots, and private pilots.\113\ As explained above, the FAA is adding
new Sec.  61.109(l)(3)(ii) because new Sec.  61.412 of this final rule
will allow sport pilots to receive the training specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12) from flight instructors with a sport pilot rating if the
training and endorsement requirements of Sec.  61.412 are met.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 81 FR at 29735.
    \110\ 81 FR at 29735.
    \111\ As explained in section III.E.1 of this preamble, new
Sec.  61.412 authorizes flight instructors with sport pilot ratings
to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by reference
to the instruments to sport pilot applicants receiving flight
training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
    \112\ Section 61.413 prescribes the privileges of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Section 61.415
prescribes the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating. Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and
limits of a sport pilot certificate. More specifically, the FAA
notes that Sec.  61.315(c) prohibits a sport pilot from acting as
PIC of a light sport aircraft at night, and Sec.  61.415(c)
prohibits a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating from
providing training to operate a light sport aircraft in Class B, C,
and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace,
and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational
control tower, unless the instructor has the endorsement specified
in Sec.  61.325, or is otherwise authorized to conduct operations in
this airspace and at these airports. Therefore, a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating is not authorized to provide flight
training at night and may not be authorized to provide flight
training at an airport with an operating control tower.
    \113\ 81 FR at 29735.
    \114\ Under Sec.  61.93(e)(2), when a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate receives training for cross-country flight
in an airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS,
that student pilot must receive and log flight training in a single-
engine airplane on control and maneuvering solely by reference to
flight instruments, including straight and level flight, turns,
descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.99(b) to be consistent with
the reorganization of proposed Sec.  61.109(l).
    SAFE commented that pilot certification under part 61 is based on
demonstrated performance. Therefore, if a sport pilot meets the
required performance standards, the pilot should not have to accomplish
additional training just because the previous training was provided by
a subpart K instructor.
    The FAA notes that pilot certification under part 61 is based on
more than flight proficiency. An applicant for a pilot certificate must
meet all the applicable aeronautical knowledge, flight proficiency, and
aeronautical experience requirements. Sections 61.99 and 61.109, which
contain the aeronautical experience requirements for a person who
applies for a recreational or private pilot certificate, respectively,
prescribes flight training and experience requirements above those that
are required for a sport pilot certificate.\115\ Therefore, while this
rulemaking allows a sport pilot to credit flight training received from
a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the flight
training requirements for a recreational or private pilot certificate,
that pilot is still required to accomplish additional flight training
and experience requirements that exceed those required for a sport
pilot certificate. These additional requirements include additional
training (e.g. night training), verification of proficiency, and a
recommendation from a flight instructor (qualified under subpart H)
that the applicant is prepared for the practical test for the
recreational or private pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ For example, Sec. Sec.  61.99(a)(2) and 61.109 require a
person to receive 3 hours of flight training with an authorized
instructor in the aircraft for the rating sought in preparation for
the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months. Section
61.109 also requires 3 hours of night training, 3 hours of flight by
reference to instruments, operations at an airport with an operating
control tower, and some additional cross-country time requirements.
The FAA notes that night and instrument time are not required for
balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift control aircraft at the
private pilot certification level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual suggested that if a private pilot candidate can
credit time in a light sport aircraft, then the FAA should allow a
sport pilot candidate to credit his or her sport pilot training toward
the private pilot certificate in the future.
    This final rule allows an applicant for a higher pilot certificate
who receives flight training from a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating, to credit that pilot time toward the aeronautical
experience requirements for a recreational or private pilot
certificate. This can include training accomplished in a Light Sport
Aircraft (LSA).

    Both EAA and Chesapeake Sport Pilot discussed that allowing only
partial credit would have placed undue burden on designated pilot
examiners when trying to differentiate training provided by a subpart K
instructor verses a subpart H instructor since this time is documented
as ``dual'' instruction in a person's logbook.
    Because the FAA is allowing full credit for training received as a
sport pilot applicant, this alleviates concerns with differentiating
training received from a subpart H instructor versus training received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating, when recording
flight instruction in a person's logbook. Flight instructors provide
additional details in the applicant's logbook other than just
describing dual instruction. A subpart H instructor is required to
provide a recommendation in the pilot applicant's logbook certifying
that he or she has provided the required additional training
referencing Sec. Sec.  61.103(f), 61.107(b), and 61.109, for the
private pilot certificate.\116\ This same flight instructor will
certify flight training entries, in which he or she was the instructor
providing the training, in the student's logbook with a signature,
flight instructor certificate number, and expiration date. This allows
an examiner to verify that the additional flight training provided
qualifies for the higher certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ AC 61-65F Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground
Instructors provides recommended endorsements and rule references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that currently examiners are not required to verify
the credentials of the recommending instructor unless there are
extenuating circumstances such as ensuring the flight instructor meets
the requirements of Sec.  61.195(h). Section 61.59 provides safeguards
to ensure that the training flight instructors provide is appropriate
to the certificate or rating for which a student is applying.\117\
Applicants have a responsibility to understand and be familiar with the
qualifications of the person providing them training and
recommendations. The FAA expects applicants to provide additional
scrutiny to their own pilot records before providing them to an
examiner or inspector, who will verify the applicant's experience and
qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Section 61.59 governs the falsification, reproduction, or
alteration of applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, or
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GAMA stated that since the publication of the proposed rule, the
FAA replaced the PTS for private and sport pilots with the Airman
Certification Standards (ACS), which became effective in June 2016.
GAMA recommended referencing the ACS instead of the PTS to help
facilitate the proposed changes in this rule.
    The FAA implemented the ACS for Private Pilot Airplane on June 15,
2016, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM. Because the Private
Pilot ACS for Airplane superseded the Private Pilot PTS for
Airplane,\118\ this final rule preamble refers to the Private Pilot ACS
rather than the PTS. However, the FAA will continue to refer to the
Sport Pilot PTS until it is replaced by the applicable ACS.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ The Private Pilot PTS for Airplane was cancelled as of
June 15, 2016.
    \119\ In light of GAMA's comment, however, the FAA has decided
to update its terminology in 14 CFR to reflect the transition from
the PTS to the ACS. For further explanation, see section III.L. of
this final rule preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual commenter opposed the provision. The commenter
stated that a sport pilot instructor only has to have a private pilot
certificate and no instrument rating. The commenter suggested that a
sport pilot instructor does not have the appropriate experience and
background to provide ``airline discipline,'' and claimed that sport
pilot ratings are sought due to a non-requirement for a medical
certificate. The individual claimed the ``general aviation safety
record shows the need for rigorous, standardized training from the
student's first flight.'' Additionally, this individual asserted that
the private pilot certificate requires 20 hours of instruction from an
authorized instructor who has a vastly superior background than a sport
pilot instructor.
    A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not required to
possess a private pilot certificate. He or she is required to hold at
least a sport pilot certificate with the category and class ratings or
privileges, appropriate to the flight instructor certificate held.\120\
The commenter's reference to ``airline discipline'' is irrelevant since
those who possess a flight instructor certificate are not held to
airline standards. Only those pursuing an airline transport pilot (ATP)
certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating are
required by regulation to be trained on air carrier operations as
outlined in Sec.  61.156. There is no doubt that a subpart H instructor
must meet higher experience requirements than a flight instructor with
a sport pilot rating. However, flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating are trained and tested on the same fundamentals of instruction
as a subpart H instructor. Additionally, flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating provide flight training on many of the same tasks
and maneuvers as subpart H instructors because many of the training
requirements and practical test standards for the recreational and
private pilot certificates are identical to those required for the
sport pilot certificate. For example, as stated in the NPRM, ten of the
twelve areas of operation required in the airplane practical test
standards for private pilot are also listed in the airplane practical
test standards for sport pilot.\121\ These areas of operation must be
performed to identical standards. Furthermore, sport pilots who pursue
a recreational or private pilot certificate will still be required to
receive additional training and endorsements from a subpart H flight
instructor and meet the additional experience and proficiency
requirements for that certificate. For example, an applicant for a
recreational or private pilot certificate will still be required to
receive a minimum of three hours of training within 2 calendar months
of the practical test from a flight instructor certificated under
subpart H.\122\ A flight instructor certificated under subpart H is
still required to conduct training on all the areas of operation and
certify that the applicant is prepared for the practical test.\123\
Thus, only a subpart H flight instructor may recommend an applicant for
a recreational or private pilot practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 14 CFR 61.403(c)
    \121\ 81 FR at 29735.
    \122\ See 14 CFR 61.99(a)(2) and 61.109(a)(4), (b)(4), (c)(3),
(d)(3), (g)(3).
    \123\ 14 CFR 61.96(b)(5) and 61.103(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating does
not have an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate is not
relevant because all the training that he or she provides must be
accomplished under visual flight rules. This fact is also true for the
majority of the flight training that a student receives in pursuit of a
recreational or private pilot certificate.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The FAA also notes that, similar to a subpart H instructor
providing flight training to a recreational or private pilot
applicant, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not
required to have an instrument rating on his or her flight
instructor certificate. As noted in several legal interpretations, a
flight instructor who provides flight training on the ``control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments''
is not required to hold an instrument rating on his or her flight
instructor certificate. Legal Interpretation, Letter to Scott
Rohlfing from Lorelei Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (Feb. 24, 2016); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor
Grayson from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (Jan. 4, 2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor
Grayson from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (July 6, 2010). Under Sec.  61.65(d)(2), ``the required
instrument time other than instrument training does not require the
presence of a CFI but only the presence of an individual qualified
to act as a safety pilot or as a pilot in command of an operation in
actual instrument conditions.'' Id.

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

    The FAA notes that the commenter's statement about persons seeking
sport pilot ratings due to the ability to fly without a medical
certificate is not relevant to the FAA's proposal because the proposal
was not specific to medical certification requirements. Furthermore,
BasicMed now allows certain pilots to operate without a medical
certificate, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public Law 114-190, Section 2307
(2016); 14 CFR 61.3(c)(2)(xiii), 61.23(a)(3), 61.101, 61.113(i). See
also Final Rule, ``Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and
Education Requirements,'' 82 FR 3149 (Jan. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula Courses for Renewal of
Certificate

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  141.5(d) to allow the
FAA to issue or renew a pilot school certificate to a part 141 pilot
school that holds a training course approval for special curricula
courses based on their students' successful completion of end-of-course
tests for these FAA approved courses.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Prior to this final rule, under Sec.  141.5, the graduates
that completed special curricula courses could not be counted when
calculating the 80 percent pass rate required for issuance or
renewal of a pilot school certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA supported this proposal noting that it could benefit the
flight training community by encouraging the development of more FAA-
approved courses by part 141 schools and by encouraging existing flight
schools to pursue part 141 certificates.
    SAFE believed the proposed language would have significantly
changed the effect Sec.  141.5(d) has on pilot schools requesting
approval or renewal of their certificates. SAFE asked the FAA to
reconsider its use of the words ``all'', ``or'', and ``and,'' and to
reword the proposed rule to ensure that the 80 percent or higher pass
rate would be computed properly.
    After reconsidering its use of the words ``all'' and ``and'' in the
proposed rule, the FAA finds that proposed Sec.  141.5(d), which would
have required an applicant for a pilot school certificate to establish
at least an 80 percent pass rate on the first attempt for all tests
administered, accurately reflects the FAA's intent. Prior to 2009,\127\
Sec.  141.5(d) required at least 80 percent of all tests administered
to be passed on the first attempt. In the 2009 final rule and
subsequent technical amendment, the FAA made changes to Sec.  141.5(d);
\128\ however, the FAA explained that the changes were intended to
clarify, not alter, the existing rule requirements.\129\ In a legal
interpretation dated July 1, 2011, the FAA stated that ``the quality of
training requirement under Sec.  141.5(d) is calculated based on the
percentage of successful first attempts on all knowledge tests,
practical tests, and end-of-course tests for appendix K courses.''
\130\ Because the FAA never intended to alter the requirement that ``at
least 80 percent of all tests administered be passed on the first
attempt,'' the FAA finds that proposed Sec.  141.5(d) was accurately
worded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules; Final Rule,'' 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4,
1997); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (1998).
    \128\ After the 2009 final rule and subsequent technical
amendment, Sec.  141.5(d) stated: ``Has established a pass rate of
80 percent or higher on the first attempt for all knowledge tests
leading to a certificate or rating, practical tests leading to a
certificate or rating, or end-of-course tests for an approved
training course specified in appendix K of this part.'' ``Pilot,
Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification'' Technical
Amendment, 75 FR 56857 (Sep. 17, 2010); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011).
    \129\ In 2009, the FAA sought to clarify the ``quantity of
training'' requirement in Sec.  141.5(d) by revising and relocating
it to new paragraph (e). ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification; Final Rule,'' 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009). As
a result of the 2009 final rule, Sec.  141.5(d) contained the
``quality of training'' requirement and Sec.  141.5(e) contained the
``quantity of training'' requirement. The FAA explained in the
preamble that the requirement that ``at least 80 percent of those
persons passed their test on the first attempt is not a change from
the existing rule. The purpose of this change is clarifying the
intent of the rule.'' 74 FR 42500, 42538. The FAA issued a technical
amendment in 2010 to clarify Sec.  141.5(d) and to reinsert language
that was inadvertently removed as a result of the 2009 final rule.
75 FR 56857. In the technical amendment, the FAA explained that it
was revising the language of Sec.  141.5(d) to clarify that in order
to meet the quality of training standard for issuance or renewal of
a pilot school certificate, a pilot school must achieve a combined
80 percent pass rate on the first attempt for all: (1) Knowledge
tests and practical tests leading to a certificate or rating, and
(2) end-of-course tests for appendix K courses. 75 FR 56857. The FAA
adopted rule language, however, that appeared to be inconsistent
with its intent given its use of the term ``or'' instead of ``and''
in Sec.  141.5(d). 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011).
    \130\ Legal Interpretation to Jared Testa from the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (July 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 141.5(d) remains unchanged from the NPRM. The FAA expects
that a pilot school will utilize special curricula course graduations
when applying for or renewing a pilot school certificate on or after
the effective date of this provision, even if those special curricula
course graduations occurred before the effective date of this new rule
provision. Therefore, effective July 27, 2018, pilot schools will be
able to immediately utilize graduates from special curricula courses to
qualify for or renew their pilot school certificates as described in
Sec.  141.5(d).

H. Temporary Validation of Flightcrew Members' Certificates by Part 119
Certificate Holders Conducting Operations Under Part 121 or 135 and by
Fractional Ownership Program Managers Conducting Operations Under Part
91, Subpart K

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec. Sec.  121.383(c) and
135.95 to allow part 119 certificate holders conducting operations
under part 121 or 135 to provide their flightcrew members a temporary
verification document (valid for 72 hours) without the need of an FAA
exemption.\131\ The FAA also proposed to amend Sec. Sec.  61.3(a) and
63.3(a) to permit the documents provided by certificate holders to be
carried as an airman certificate or medical certificate, as
appropriate.\132\ The FAA proposed that a certificate holder would be
required to obtain approval from the Principal Operations Inspector to
exercise this privilege. The FAA also proposed to establish a process
to facilitate approval of a Certificate Verification Plan via
Operations Specifications (A063).\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Prior to this final rule, regulations required a person
serving as a required flightcrew member of a United States civil
aircraft to have his or her airman certificate in his or her
physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when
exercising the privileges of that certificate. 14 CFR 61.3(a) and
63.3(a). The regulations also required a person serving as a
required flightcrew member to have an appropriate medical
certificate in his or her physical possession or readily accessible
in the aircraft. 14 CFR 61.3(c) and 63.3(a).
    \132\ If the flightcrew member's airman or medical certificate
remains unavailable after 72 hours, the flightcrew member would be
required to comply with the requirements of Sec.  61.29 or Sec.
63.16, as applicable, and request a 60-day temporary confirmation
document from the Airman Certification Branch or the Aeromedical
Certification Branch until a replacement certificate is issued and
in the possession of that airman.
    \133\ This would be in lieu of utilizing the FAA Airmen Online
Services website that can provide temporary authority in the form of
a fax or email. This also would apply to the temporary authority for
the medical certificate provided by fax from the Aeromedical Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received five comments from organizations and two comments
from individuals.
    Airlines for America (A4A), National Air Transportation Association
(NATA), and Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) recommended
the FAA clarify what an acceptable form of media is for the temporary
validation document. A4A suggested revising proposed Sec.  121.383(c)
to clarify that the temporary document may be in either paper or
electronic form. A4A noted that this clarification would standardize
methods of documentation in the industry and, as more flight decks go
paperless, ensure that the airlines have the ability to transmit the
required

documentation to the pilot in a timely manner, thereby reducing stress
and delays without compromising safety. Similarly, NATA believed an
electronic document would be suitable.
    The FAA finds it unnecessary to specify in Sec. Sec.  121.383(c)
and 135.95(b) that the temporary verification document may be in either
paper or electronic form. Sections 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) are
intended to provide flexibility and allow for advancements in
technology regarding the method, format or media by which the temporary
document must be provided. The operations specification authorizing an
approved certificate verification plan will include the specific method
or format for each air carrier/operator. Accordingly, the FAA is
adopting Sec. Sec.  121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as proposed. The FAA will
be issuing a new Advisory Circular (AC 00-70) to provide guidance to
air carriers/operators on obtaining approval of a certificate
verification plan, including the necessary components for various
methods and formats of issuing the temporary document.
    A4A supported proposed Sec. Sec.  121.383(c) and 135.95(b), which
would have allowed the use of temporary validation documents for
flights conducted ``entirely within the United States.'' Unlike the
current exemptions that limit the relief to ``operations conducted
entirely within the District of Columbia and the 48 contiguous States
of the United States,'' the proposed rule language would have allowed
persons to use the temporary document on flights conducted entirely
within Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other possessions.
    The FAA is adopting Sec. Sec.  121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as
proposed.\134\ Article 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation requires that every aircraft engaged in international
navigation shall carry ``the appropriate licenses for each member of
the crew.'' Thus, temporary verification documents provided by the
certificate holder from its records will not meet the requirements of
the Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ In accordance with Sec.  1.1 ``United States, in a
geographical sense, means (1) the States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the possessions, including the territorial waters,
and (2) the airspace of those areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual suggested the FAA change ``domestic operations'' to
``operations within the United States'' to avoid confusion with the
term ``domestic operations'' contained in 14 CFR part 119, which
defines a particular type of part 119 operation.
    The term ``domestic operations'' was not proposed in regulatory
text. It is therefore unnecessary to make any changes to the proposed
rule language in response to the individual's comment. The FAA notes,
however, that this term was used in Tables 1 and 3 of the NPRM,\135\
which summarized the proposed provisions. To avoid any confusion, the
FAA is not using the term ``domestic operations'' in this final rule
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 81 FR at 29722 and 29748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA suggested a correction to proposed Sec.  63.3(a)(2), which
would have mistakenly referenced Sec.  63.16(d) instead of Sec.
63.16(f).
    Section 63.3(a)(2) now references new Sec.  63.16(f), as AOPA
suggested because the requirements that were previously contained in
Sec.  63.16(d) have been relocated to new Sec.  63.16(f) and revised.
    One individual asked several clarifying questions regarding
limitations on the use of temporary validation documents. This
individual asked how the program would keep track of the number of
times a flightcrew member loses, destroys, or otherwise fails to have
their certificates in their possession. This individual also asked if
there was a limit to the number of temporary verification documents
issued to an individual, and if so, how those limitations would be
enforced.
    Keeping track of how many times a crewmember loses their pilot or
medical certificate, or any limitations regarding the number of times a
temporary verification document can be issued to any one individual,
can be managed appropriately with FAA air carrier oversight. In
addition, conditions and limitations can be specified in an air
carrier's certificate verification plan, within its operation
specifications.
    RACCA and Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc. suggested incorporating
similar allowances for aircraft registration and airworthiness
certificates.
    These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The
proposal was specific to certificates that an airman must have in his
or her possession to exercise his or her privileges. Unlike airmen
certificates that are carried on a person outside of the aircraft, the
airworthiness and registration certificates are typically placed in a
permanent location within the aircraft (usually visible to the
operator) and are rarely removed from the aircraft.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ The FAA also notes that Article 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation requires that every aircraft of a
contracting State, engaged in international navigation, shall carry
in the aircraft several documents, including its certificate of
registration, its certificate of airworthiness, and the appropriate
licenses for each member of the crew. Because temporary verification
documents would not meet the requirements of the Convention, the FAA
is only allowing the use of temporary verification documents on
flights conducted entirely within the United States.