[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30232-30284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12800]



[[Page 30231]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 124

June 27, 2018

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Aviation Administration





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





14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, et al.





Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, 
Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 30232]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, 63, 65, 91, 121, 135, and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-6142; Amdt. Nos. 1-73, 60-6, 61-142, 63-41, 65-
58, 91-351, 121-381, 135-140, 141-20]
RIN 2120-AK28


Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain 
aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the 
allowed use of aviation training devices. Use of these training devices 
has proven to be an effective, safe, and affordable means of obtaining 
pilot experience. This rulemaking also addresses changing technologies 
by accommodating the use of technically advanced airplanes as an 
alternative to the use of older complex single engine airplanes for the 
commercial pilot training and testing requirements. Additionally, this 
rulemaking broadens the opportunities for military instructor pilots or 
pilot examiners to obtain civilian ratings based on military 
experience, expands opportunities for logging pilot time, and removes a 
burden from sport pilot instructors by permitting them to serve as 
safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking includes changes to some of the 
provisions established in an August 2009 final rule. These actions are 
necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and 
activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

DATES: This rule is effective July 27, 2018, except for the amendments 
to Sec. Sec.  61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii) and 
(j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part 
141, which are effective August 27, 2018; the amendments to Sec. Sec.  
61.1 (amendatory instruction 10 revising the definition of ``Pilot 
time''), 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), (d), (e), 
and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 135.99, and 141.5(d) which are 
effective November 26, 2018; and the amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.3, 
63.3, 63.16, 91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, which are effective 
December 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification 
and Training Branch, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522; 
telephone (202) 267-1100; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0ddd1c2d3d5dc9ed2d5c2ded1c2d4f0d6d1d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddb0bcafbeb8b1f3bfb8afb3bcafb99dbbbcbcf3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document
I. Executive Summary
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. Aviation Training Devices
    1. Definition of Aviation Training Device
    2. Instructor Requirement When Using a Full Flight Simulator, 
Flight Training Device, or Aviation Training Device To Complete 
Instrument Recency Experience
    3. Instrument Recency Experience Requirements
    B. Second in Command Time in Part 135 Operations
    1. Airplane Requirements
    2. Part 135 Flight Instructors
    3. Logging Requirements
    4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC PDP
    5. Effective Date and Implementation
    C. Instrument Recency Experience for SICs Serving in Part 135 
Operations
    D. Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in 
Technically Advanced Airplanes
    1. Definition of Technically Advanced Airplane
    2. Amendment to Aeronautical Experience Requirement for 
Commercial Pilots
    3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor 
Practical Test Standards
    E. Flight Instructors With Instrument Ratings Only
    F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight Instructors
    1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege
    2. Credit for Training Obtained as a Sport Pilot
    G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula Courses for Renewal of 
Certificate
    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
    I. Military Competence for Flight Instructors
    J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the Restricted Category for 
Pilot Flight Training and Checking
    1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish Work Activity Directly 
Associated With the Special Purpose
    2. LODAs for Training and Testing for Certification
    3. Economic Burden
    4. Operations for Compensation or Hire
    5. Exemptions
    6. FAA Interpretation of Sec.  91.313
    K. Single Pilot Operations of Former Military Airplanes and 
Other Airplanes With Special Airworthiness Certificates
    L. Technical Corrections and Nomenclature Change
IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for Rule Provisions
V. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials
VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
VIII. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation
    D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
IX. Additional Information
    A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document

AATD--Advanced aviation training device
AC--Advisory Circular
ATD--Aviation training device
ATP--Airline transport pilot
BATD--Basic aviation training device
CFI--Certificated flight instructor
FFS--Full flight simulator
FTD--Flight training device
FSTD--Flight simulation training device
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR--Instrument flight rules
IPC--Instrument proficiency check
LOA--Letter of authorization
LODA--Letter of deviation authority
MFD--Multi-function display
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
PFD--Primary flight display
PIC--Pilot in command
SIC--Second in command
TAA--Technically advanced airplane
VFR--Visual flight rules

I. Executive Summary

    On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) titled ``Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions.'' \1\ 
In the

[[Page 30233]]

NPRM, the FAA proposed amendments to reduce or relieve existing burdens 
on the general aviation community. Several of the proposed changes 
resulted from suggestions from the general aviation community through 
petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, and requests for 
legal interpretation. The proposed changes would have increased the use 
of aviation training devices (ATDs), flight training devices (FTDs), 
and full flight simulators (FFSs); expanded opportunities for pilots in 
part 135 operations to log flight time; allowed an alternative to the 
complex airplane requirement for commercial pilot training; and 
permitted pilots to credit some of their sport pilot training toward a 
higher certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 29720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the provisions proposed in the NPRM, the changes 
being made to those provisions in this final rule, the Code of Federal 
Regulations sections affected, and the total cost savings (benefits) 
for a 5-year analysis period. All of the provisions in this rule are 
either relieving or voluntary. For those provisions that are relieving, 
no person affected is anticipated to incur any costs associated with 
the relieving nature of the provision. The FAA assumes that as these 
provisions are relieving, all persons affected will use the provisions 
as they will be beneficial. For those provisions that are voluntary, 
persons who wish to use the new provisions will do so only if the 
benefit they would accrue from their use exceeds any cost they might 
incur to comply with the new provision.

                          Table 1--Summary of Proposed Provisions and Changes From NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Significant
          Provision             Summary of NPRM    changes from         14 CFR Sec.  Sec.       Summary of costs/
                                   provision           NPRM                  affected               benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Aviation Training Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructor requirement when    Remove the        No longer         61.51(g)...................  2016$-$12.5M.
 using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to   requirement to    describes the                                 PV = Present
 complete instrument recency.   have an           training                                       Value.
                                instructor        devices as                                    PV-3%--$11.4M.
                                present when      ``approved''.                                 PV-7%--$10.3M.
                                accomplishing
                                flight
                                experience
                                requirements
                                for instrument
                                recency in an
                                FAA-approved
                                FFS, FTD, or
                                ATD.
Instrument recency experience  Reduce frequency  Allows any        61.57(c)...................  2016$-83.1M.
 requirements.                  of instrument     combination of                                PV-3%--$76.1M.
                                recency flight    aircraft, FFS,                                PV-7%--68.2M.
                                experience        FTD, or ATD to
                                accomplished      satisfy the
                                exclusively in    instrument
                                ATDs from every   recency
                                two months to     requirements.
                                every six        No longer
                                months.           describes the
                               Reduce number of   training
                                tasks and         devices as
                                remove three-     ``approved''.
                                hour flight
                                time
                                requirement
                                when
                                accomplishing
                                instrument
                                recency flight
                                experience in
                                ATDs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second in command for part     Allow a pilot to  Adds the option   61.1; 61.39(a); 61.51(e),    Minimal Cost
 135 operations.                log SIC flight    to use a single-  (f); 61.159; 61.161(c),      Savings--Not
                                time in a         engine turbine-   (d), (e); 135.99(c), (d).    Quantified.
                                multiengine       powered
                                airplane in a     airplane in an
                                part 135          approved SIC
                                operation that    PDP.
                                does not         No longer
                                require an SIC.   requires the
                                                  PIC to be a
                                                  part 135 flight
                                                  instructor.
                                                 Adds crew
                                                  pairing
                                                  requirements to
                                                  ensure the PIC
                                                  is qualified
                                                  and has
                                                  completed
                                                  mentoring
                                                  training.
                                                 Allows a pilot
                                                  to log SIC time
                                                  obtained in
                                                  part 91
                                                  operations
                                                  conducted in
                                                  accordance with
                                                  the certificate
                                                  holder's OpSpec.
                                                 Allows pilots to
                                                  credit SIC time
                                                  logged under a
                                                  SIC PDP toward
                                                  the specific
                                                  flight time
                                                  requirements
                                                  for ATP
                                                  certification.
Instrument recency experience  Remove the        Allows any        135.245....................  Minimal Cost
 for SICs serving in Part 135   reference to      combination of                                 Savings--Not
 operations.                    part 61 in Sec.   aircraft and                                   Quantified.
                                  135.245(a)      FSTD to satisfy
                                and add the       the SIC
                                current           instrument
                                instrument        recent
                                experience        experience
                                requirements in   requirements.
                                Sec.             Includes an
                                61.57(c)(1) and   option for part
                                (2) to new Sec.   135 SICs to
                                  135.245(c).     reestablish
                                                  instrument
                                                  recency.

[[Page 30234]]

 
Completion of commercial       Allow TAA to be   Includes a        61.1; 61.129(a)(3)(ii),      2016$-$3.1M.
 pilot training and testing     used to meet      general           (j); appendix D to part     PV-3%--$2.8M.
 in technically advanced        some or all of    definition of     141 61.31(e) and (f).       PV-7%--$2.6M.
 airplanes (TAA).               the currently     TAA in Sec.
                                required 10       61.1, and
                                hours of          relocates the
                                training that     TAA
                                must be           requirements
                                completed in a    from the
                                complex or        proposed
                                turbine-powered   definition to
                                airplane for      new Sec.
                                the single        61.129(j).
                                engine           Revises the
                                commercial        proposed
                                pilot             requirements
                                certificate.      for TAAs to
                                TAA could be      accommodate
                                used in           existing and
                                combination       new technology.
                                with, or         Allows a person
                                instead of, a     to use any
                                complex or        combination of
                                turbine-powered   turbine-
                                airplane to       powered,
                                meet the          complex or
                                aeronautical      technically
                                experience        advanced
                                requirement and   airplanes to
                                could be used     satisfy the
                                to complete the   training
                                practical test.   requirement.
                                                 Clarifies that
                                                  the option to
                                                  use a TAA
                                                  applies to all
                                                  commercial
                                                  pilot
                                                  applicants for
                                                  a single-engine
                                                  class rating
                                                  (land and sea).
                                                 Adds an
                                                  exception to
                                                  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
                                                  facilitating
                                                  PIC operations.
                                                 In Notice N
                                                  8900.463, Use
                                                  of a Complex
                                                  Airplane During
                                                  a Commercial
                                                  Pilot or Flight
                                                  Instructor
                                                  Practical Test,
                                                  the FAA
                                                  implemented a
                                                  policy change
                                                  that allows any
                                                  single engine
                                                  airplane to be
                                                  used for the
                                                  commercial
                                                  pilot and
                                                  flight
                                                  instructor
                                                  practical tests.
Flight instructors with        Remove the        Requires an       61.195(b), (c).............  Minimal Cost
 instrument ratings only.       requirement       instrument only                                Savings--Not
                                that instrument   instructor to                                  Quantified.
                                only              possess an
                                instructors       airplane
                                have category     category
                                and class         multiengine
                                ratings on        class rating on
                                their flight      his or her
                                instructor        flight
                                certificates to   instructor
                                provide           certificate
                                instrument        when providing
                                training.         instrument
                                                  training in a
                                                  multiengine
                                                  airplane.
Sport pilot flight instructor  Allow a sport     Allows sport      61.412; 61.415(h);           Minimal Cost
 training privilege.            pilot only        pilot             91.109(c).                   Savings--Not
                                instructor to     instructors to                                 Quantified.
                                provide           receive the
                                training on       training
                                control and       required by
                                maneuvering       Sec.   61.412
                                solely by         in an ATD.
                                reference to     Allows
                                the flight        instrument only
                                instruments       instructors to
                                (for sport        provide the
                                pilot students    training and
                                only).            endorsement
                                                  required by
                                                  Sec.   61.412
                                                  to sport pilot
                                                  instructors.
Credit for training obtained   Allow a portion   Allows all        61.99; 61.109(l)...........  2016$-$14.0M.
 as a sport pilot.              of sport pilot    training                                      PV-3%--$13.3M.
                                training to be    received from a                               PV-7%--$12.3M.
                                credited for      sport pilot
                                certain           instructor to
                                aeronautical      be credited
                                experience        towards a
                                requirements      higher
                                for a higher      certificate or
                                certificate or    rating.
                                rating.          Allows training
                                                  received from a
                                                  sport pilot
                                                  instructor on
                                                  the control and
                                                  maneuvering of
                                                  an aircraft
                                                  solely by
                                                  reference to
                                                  the instruments
                                                  to be credited
                                                  towards a
                                                  private pilot
                                                  certificate,
                                                  provided the
                                                  sport pilot
                                                  instructor
                                                  satisfies Sec.
                                                   61.412.
Include special curricula      Allow part 141    No changes......  141.5(d)...................  Minimal Cost
 courses in renewal of pilot    pilot schools                                                    Savings--Not
 school certificate.            to count FAA                                                     Quantified.
                                approved
                                ``special
                                curricula''
                                course
                                completions
                                (graduates of
                                these courses)
                                toward
                                certificate
                                renewal
                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30235]]

 
                                                Other Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary validation of        Allow a           Adds language to  61.3; 63.3; 63.16;           Minimal Cost
 flightcrew members'            confirmation      also allow part   91.1015(h); 121.383;         Savings--Not
 certificates.                  document issued   91, subpart K     135.95.                      Quantified.
                                by a part 119     program
                                certificate       managers to
                                holder            issue temporary
                                authorized to     verification
                                conduct           documents.
                                operations
                                under part 121
                                or 135 to serve
                                as a temporary
                                verification of
                                the airman
                                certificate and/
                                or medical
                                certificate
                                during
                                operations
                                within the
                                United States
                                for up to 72
                                hours.
Military competence for        Allow the         Revises           61.197; 61.199.............  Minimal Cost
 Flight Instructors.            addition of a     reinstatement                                  Savings--Not
                                flight            requirements to                                Quantified.
                                instructor        accurately
                                rating based on   reflect the
                                military          process by
                                competency to     which a
                                ``simultaneousl   military
                                y qualify'' for   instructor
                                the               pilot acquires
                                reinstatement     an additional
                                of an expired     aircraft rating
                                FAA flight        qualification.
                                instructor       Provides
                                certificate.      military
                                                  instructor
                                                  pilots two
                                                  options for
                                                  reinstatement,
                                                  consistent with
                                                  the
                                                  reinstatement
                                                  requirements
                                                  for civilian
                                                  holders of
                                                  expired flight
                                                  instructor
                                                  certificates.
Restricted Category Aircraft   Allow an          Removes proposed  91.313.....................  Minimal Cost
 type training and testing      operator to       requirement                                    Savings--Not
 allowances.                    request and       that personnel                                 Quantified.
                                obtain a letter   receiving
                                of deviation      flight
                                authority to      crewmember
                                conduct           training in
                                training and      special purpose
                                testing and       operations be
                                other directly    employed by the
                                related           operator
                                activities for    providing the
                                employees to      training.
                                obtain a type    Specifies that
                                rating in a       relocation
                                restricted        flights include
                                category          delivery and
                                aircraft.         repositioning
                                                  flights.
Single Pilot Operations of     Allow pilots to   Revised to        91.531.....................  Minimal Cost
 Former Military Airplanes      operate certain   accommodate the                                Savings--Not
 and Other Airplanes with       large and         new airplane                                   Quantified.
 Special Airworthiness          turbojet-         certification
 Certificates.                  powered           levels adopted
                                airplanes         in the part 23
                                (specifically     final rule.
                                former military
                                and some
                                airplanes not
                                type
                                certificated in
                                the standard
                                category)
                                without a pilot
                                who is
                                designated as
                                SIC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires 
the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for 
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air 
commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which requires 
the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman 
certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an 
individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties 
related to, the position authorized by the certificate.

III. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a NPRM proposing a variety of 
provisions intended to provide relief from regulatory burdens to the 
general aviation community, commercial pilots, military flight 
instructors, and those using new technology in aviation. The FAA 
proposed changes in 12 different subject areas to 14 CFR parts 61, 63, 
91, 121, 135, and 141.
    The FAA received and considered a total of 100 comments to the 
NPRM. Commenters included 63 individuals, 15 aviation-related 
companies, and 12 aviation-related organizations. Several commenters 
provided more than one comment. The majority of commenters supported 
various proposed provisions, and many recommended changes to the 
proposed rule language. While there was opposition to some provisions, 
no commenters opposed the NPRM in its entirety.
    Because of the specific nature of each provision, the FAA discusses 
each provision separately.

A. Aviation Training Devices

    This final rule amends the regulations governing the use of 
aviation training devices (ATDs). As stated in the NPRM,\2\ the FAA 
approves ATDs for use in pilot certification training under the 
authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c). Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the qualification of flight 
simulation training devices (FSTD), which include full flight 
simulators (FFSs) levels A through D and flight training devices (FTDs) 
levels 4 through 7. As discussed in the following sections, the FAA is: 
(1) Adding a definition of ATD in Sec.  61.1; (2) removing the 
requirement for an

[[Page 30236]]

instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her 
instrument recency in an FFS, FTD, or ATD; and (3) amending the 
regulations to allow pilots to accomplish instrument recency experience 
in ATDs at the same interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR at 29723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Definition of Aviation Training Device
    The FAA proposed to define ATD as a training device, other than a 
FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the 
Administrator.\3\ The FAA proposed to add this definition to Sec.  61.1 
to differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs qualified under part 60 and to 
establish that an ATD must be evaluated, qualified, and approved by the 
Administrator to be used to meet aeronautical experience requirements 
under part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to this final rule, an ATD was defined in FAA guidance 
but not in the regulations. AC 61-136A defines ATD as a training 
device, other than a FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, 
and approved by the Administrator. This final rule codifies the 
definition in Sec.  61.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 3 comments on the proposed definition of 
``aviation training device.''
    The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) concurred with 
the proposal. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 
however, recommended removing the words ``evaluated'' and ``qualified'' 
from the proposed definition because they are redundant with 
``approved'' and because the FAA may, at times, only need to 
``approve'' a previously approved ATD model.
    The FAA is retaining the terms ``evaluated'' and ``qualified'' 
because the evaluation and qualification of an ATD are important parts 
of the approval process. An ATD is evaluated and qualified before it is 
approved under Sec.  61.4(c).\4\ Evaluating and qualifying ATDs 
validates their effectiveness for successful training. In response to 
AOPA's comment regarding previously approved ATD models, the FAA finds 
that defining an ATD, in part, as ``evaluated, qualified, and 
approved'' will not adversely affect the use of ATD models that have 
been previously approved. Unlike FSTD which must be individually 
qualified under part 60, the FAA has permitted the use of ATDs that 
have been produced identical to the model evaluated, qualified, and 
approved utilizing a standard letter of authorization (LOA) for over 12 
years. After the FAA provides initial approval of a specific model, 
that approval covers production of additional identical models by the 
manufacturer. However, the FAA reserves the right to re-evaluate any 
ATD used to meet pilot certification or experience requirements.\5\ 
Additional conditions and limitations in the LOAs explain that any 
changes or modifications made to the ATD that have not been approved in 
writing by the General Aviation and Commercial Division may terminate 
the LOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See AC-61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices 
and Their Use for Training and Experience (November 17, 2014).
    \5\ See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10, Sec. 1, Para. 11-10-
1-19 Inspector Oversight (explaining how the jurisdictional FSDO may 
conduct an inspection or surveillance of any FAA-approved ATD 
located within its geographical area that an owner or operator uses 
to satisfy experience or training requirements for pilot 
certificates or ratings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual commenter asked the FAA to clarify whether the 
definition eliminates the basic ATD and advanced ATD categories 
described in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-136. The individual also asked 
the FAA to update the related guidance and advisory materials with this 
clarification.
    The ATD definition does not eliminate the qualification of an ATD 
as basic or advanced. The FAA is adding a general definition of ATD to 
Sec.  61.1 to differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs qualified under 
part 60 and to establish that an ATD must be evaluated, qualified, and 
approved by the Administrator. The FAA will continue to provide 
guidance in AC 61-136, as amended, to qualify an ATD as basic or 
advanced. Comparatively, the definition in part 1 for a FTD does not 
delineate qualification levels.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 14 CFR part 1 defines ``flight training device'' as a 
replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in 
an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft cockpit replica. It 
includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent 
aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in ground and flight 
conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems 
installed in the device as described in part 60 of the chapter and 
the qualification performance standard (QPS) for a specific FTD 
qualification level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that current regulations in parts 61 and 141 
expressly differentiate instrument training time allowances for 
``basic'' verses ``advanced'' ATDs.\7\ FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11, 
Chapter 10, Section 1, Aviation Training Device also describes 
different allowances for basic and advanced ATDs. The FAA provides an 
LOA for each training device that specifies the level of approval 
(i.e., basic or advanced) for the ATD and the allowable credits, 
thereby mitigating any concern about understanding the different 
allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 14 CFR 61.65(h)(2)(i), 141.41(b), and appendix C to part 
141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is adopting the definition of ATD in Sec.  61.1 as 
proposed.
    In commenting on the ATD definition, AOPA noted that the definition 
of flight simulation training device (FSTD) is inconsistent between 
part 1 and part 60. AOPA recommended revising the part 1 definition to 
conform with the part 60 definition by adding the word ``full'' before 
``flight simulator.''
    The FAA is adopting AOPA's recommendation, which is consistent with 
the FAA's proposal to replace the words ``flight simulator'' with the 
words ``full flight simulator'' wherever they appear in the sections 
the FAA determined needed to be revised.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 81 FR at 29745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Instructor Requirement When Using a Full Flight Simulator, Flight 
Training Device, or Aviation Training Device To Complete Instrument 
Recency Experience
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  61.51(g) by revising 
paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to 
accomplish instrument recency experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD 
without an instructor present, provided a logbook or training record is 
maintained to specify the approved training device, time, and the 
content as appropriate.\9\ Under the proposal, a pilot would still have 
been required to have an instructor present when using time in a FFS, 
FTD, or ATD to acquire instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot 
certificate or rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Prior to this final rule, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) required a pilot 
accomplishing instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD 
to have an authorized instructor present to observe the time and 
sign the pilot's logbook. The FAA notes that a pilot who performs 
instrument recency in an aircraft, however, is not required to have 
an instructor present to observe the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 27 comments, 9 from organizations and 18 from 
individuals. The majority of commenters overwhelmingly supported the 
proposal noting various benefits, including reduced costs for pilots, 
less time commitment, reduced airspace use and congestion, increased 
number of instrument current pilots, and increased pilot proficiency 
and safety. Several commenters noted how the use of FFSs, FTDs, and 
ATDs enhances training by allowing more opportunities to practice 
important skills and experience a variety of approaches, conditions, 
and equipment failures.
    As stated in the NPRM,\10\ because instrument recency experience is 
not training, the FAA no longer believes it is necessary to have an 
instructor present when instrument recency experience is accomplished 
in an FSTD

[[Page 30237]]

or ATD. The FAA is therefore removing the requirement for an authorized 
instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her 
instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD, as proposed. The 
FAA is, however, slightly revising the proposed rule language by 
removing the word ``approved'' because an FFS or FTD used to satisfy 
Sec.  61.51(g)(5) is qualified, not approved, by the National Simulator 
Program under part 60.\11\ Furthermore, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) retains the 
requirement for an authorized instructor to be present in an FSTD or 
ATD when a pilot is logging training time to meet the aeronautical 
experience requirements for a certificate or rating.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 81 FR at 29724.
    \11\ FFSs and FTDs are qualified by the National Simulator 
Program under part 60. FFSs and FTDs are subsequently approved by a 
principal operations inspector (POI) or training center program 
manager (TCPM) for use in a training program. When an FFS or FTD is 
used outside of a training program, an FFS or FTD is not approved by 
the FAA; it is only qualified by the National Simulator Program 
under part 60. Therefore, not all FSTDs used to satisfy Sec.  
61.51(g)(5) will be approved. ATDs are approved by letter of 
authorization from AFS-800, The General Aviation and Commercial 
Division.
    \12\ 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4), 61.65, 61.129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with instrument recency experience accomplished in an aircraft, 
Sec.  61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the required tasks in his or 
her logbook and Sec.  61.51(b) requires certain information to be 
logged, including the type and identification of the FSTD or ATD.\13\ 
Additionally, Sec.  61.51(g)(5) requires the pilot to maintain a 
logbook or training record \14\ that specifies the training device, 
time, and content. The FAA therefore emphasizes the importance of 
clearly documenting in one's logbook the type and identification of the 
FFS, FTD, or ATD used to maintain recency and a detailed record of the 
specific tasks completed.\15\ For ATDs, the FAA recommends retaining a 
copy of the FAA Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the ATD used because 
the LOA contains the type and model of the ATD that must be documented 
in the pilot's logbook.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv).
    \14\ Although recent flight experience is not training, the 
required maneuvers may be accomplished as part of a training 
program. As such, the experience may be logged in a training record 
rather than a logbook.
    \15\ 14 CFR 61.51(b) and (g)(5). For ATDs, the type and 
identification of the device will be the manufacturer name and 
model, which is identified on the LOA for the ATD approval. All 
qualified FFSs and FTDs will have an FAA identification number.
    \16\ The FAA notes that FFSs and FTDs are not issued LOAs. 
Rather, an FFS or FTD is issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ), 
which will contain the FAA identification number. 14 CFR 60.15(g). 
The SOQ must be posted in or adjacent to the FSTD. 14 CFR 
60.9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), National Air 
Transportation Association (NATA), Redbird, Society of Aviation and 
Flight Educators (SAFE), and four individuals, who identified as either 
pilots or instructors, generally commented that bringing FFS, FTD, and 
ATD instrument recency requirements in line with the requirements when 
using an actual aircraft makes sense. These commenters indicated that 
if a pilot can be trusted to log instrument recency in an aircraft 
without an instructor present, then he or she should be trusted to do 
the same in an FFS, FTD, or ATD.
    Four commenters expressed concern, however, that there is potential 
for falsification of logbook entries by pilots if they are not 
supervised when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency 
requirements. To reduce the risk of falsification, one individual 
recommended that FAA require the simulator to produce a flight track 
and log all pilot activities and actions during the simulator session. 
The commenter recommended that the flight school keep this 
documentation, and the pilot retain a copy of this simulator session to 
support the logbook entry to satisfy the instrument recency experience 
requirement.
    Because instructor supervision is not required when a pilot 
satisfies the instrument recency experience in an aircraft,\17\ 
similarly, it should not be required when a pilot satisfies the same 
instrument recency experience in a FFS, FTD, or ATD. A pilot must 
perform and log the required tasks regardless of whether the tasks are 
accomplished in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.\18\ As several 
commenters noted, pilots who satisfy the instrument recency experience 
in an FFS, FTD, or ATD should be trusted in the same fashion as those 
pilots who satisfy the requirements in an aircraft. While there is a 
potential for falsification in both scenarios, the FAA finds that the 
current penalties for falsifying pilot logbooks and records, which 
include suspension or revocation of one's airman certificate, are a 
sufficient deterrent to falsifying the logging requirements.\19\ The 
FAA notes that falsifying a logbook entry would also be a criminal 
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.\20\ Given the deterrence that is currently 
in place for the falsification of records, the FAA finds it unnecessary 
to require instructor supervision when a pilot satisfies the instrument 
recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD. Furthermore, the FAA is not 
requiring the FFS, FTD, or ATD to produce a flight track and log pilot 
activities as proof of performing the required tasks for maintaining 
instrument recency; nor is the FAA imposing more stringent 
recordkeeping requirements on the flight schools who own such FFS, FTD, 
or ATDs or on the pilots who use the FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain 
instrument recency. These suggestions are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed further in this section, the purpose of the 
instrument recency experience requirement is to ensure the pilot 
maintains his or her instrument proficiency by performing and 
logging the required instrument experience. A pilot who accomplishes 
instrument recency experience is already instrument-rated. 
Therefore, the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument 
recency experience to already be at an acceptable level of 
proficiency.
    \18\ 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1).
    \19\ 14 CFR 61.59.
    \20\ Sec. 1001 prescribes penalties for falsification offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    American Flyers and several individuals asserted that using an FFS, 
FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency requirements, particularly 
without an instructor present, is not comparable to operating an 
aircraft. The individual commenters noted that with FFSs, FTDs, or 
ATDs, there is no spatial disorientation, nothing truly unexpected, no 
other aircraft, no equipment problems, no approach changes, no 
interaction from air traffic control, no threat to life, and rules can 
be violated. Two individuals noted that an instructor could introduce 
some of these variables in an FSTD or ATD. One individual recommended 
the FAA require a flight instructor to introduce real-world scenarios 
in an ATD as part of the instrument recency requirements.
    The FAA finds that satisfying instrument recency experience 
requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is as beneficial as satisfying the 
requirements in an aircraft regardless of whether an instructor is 
present. FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs are specifically designed to allow a 
person to replicate and execute instrument tasks just as they would in 
an aircraft. The FAA qualifies FFSs and FTDs under 14 CFR part 60, and 
the FAA evaluates, qualifies and approves ATDs under the authority 
provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c) using specific standards and criteria 
described in AC 61-136 (as amended) as one means of compliance. 
Additionally, the FAA accomplishes on site functional evaluations of 
ATDs verifying that they successfully emulate instrument tasks 
accurately.\21\ The FAA further notes that the regulations do not 
require a pilot to experience the variables mentioned by the commenters

[[Page 30238]]

as part of the required tasks for maintaining instrument recency.\22\ 
The variables identified by the commenters consist of conditions and 
events that are more specific to training, a practical test, or an 
instrument proficiency check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10 Aviation Training Device, 
Sec. 1 Approval, Oversight, and Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61 
and 141.
    \22\ 14 CFR 61.57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters, including the Lancair Owners and Builders 
Organization (LOBO), stated that having an instructor present in the 
FSS, FTD or ATD improves the pilot's proficiency. A few individuals 
stated that a pilot may need additional training and not realize it 
without an instructor present. However, one individual asserted that if 
a pilot has obtained a certificate after completing the minimum hours 
with an instructor and remains current, there is no requirement for 
additional training.
    Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to perform and log minimum tasks 
to maintain instrument recency; Sec.  61.57(c) does not impose training 
or proficiency requirements. An instrument-rated pilot has already 
demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an 
examiner. The purpose of the instrument recency experience requirement 
is to ensure the pilot maintains his or her instrument proficiency by 
performing and logging the required instrument experience. Therefore, 
the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument recency experience 
to already be at an acceptable level of proficiency. The FAA 
recommends, however, that a pilot seek additional training if he or she 
is uncomfortable with his or her performance of the required tasks 
under Sec.  61.57(c).
    LOBO recommended requiring pilots to complete an annual instrument 
proficiency check with an instrument flight instructor.
    The FAA requires an instrument proficiency check only when a pilot 
has failed to meet the recent instrument experience requirements for 
more than six calendar months.\23\ The recommendation to require an 
instrument proficiency check every year is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking and unnecessary if the pilot is maintaining his or her 
instrument recency in accordance with the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 14 CFR 61.57(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two individuals asserted that there is no cost savings when one 
takes into account the cost of a crash, including the cost of a human 
life, property damage, and medical treatment for survivors.
    For the reasons stated above, the FAA disagrees with the assertion 
that removing the requirement for an instructor to be present in an 
FSTD or ATD will result in a decrease in safety. Pilots may accomplish 
the required tasks under Sec.  61.57(c) in an aircraft in actual 
instrument conditions without an instructor present. Allowing pilots to 
accomplish the same tasks in an FSTD or ATD without an instructor 
present does not reduce the level of safety.
    LOBO questioned the accuracy of the FAA's estimates of cost 
savings, noting that the FAA may be overestimating the number of pilots 
that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD, to maintain instrument recency. LOBO 
claimed that although the percentage of pilots who possess instrument 
ratings is quite high, non-scientific polling by AOPA indicates many of 
them are not instrument current. LOBO noted that the FAA estimated that 
removing the requirement for a flight instructor to be present would 
generate a total savings of $10.6 million (present value), or $2.4 
million annually, all other factors remaining the same. Given there has 
been no polling of the U.S. pilot population for training, experience, 
etc. by the FAA since 1990, LOBO questioned the accuracy of these 
estimates.
    The Regulatory Evaluation in the NPRM estimated that implementation 
of this rule provision would result in present value cost savings of 
$10.6 million over a five-year period at a 7 percent discount rate. 
Because the FAA does not require pilots to report instrument experience 
data and capturing such data is difficult if not impossible, the FAA 
made a conservative estimate of the cost savings. This is a 
conservative estimate because it reflects that a significant number of 
pilots do not maintain instrument recency in general. The FAA estimated 
the number of pilots who might benefit from this rule provision by 
starting with the total number of instrument rated pilots in the United 
States as of June 30, 2015. This was 305,976 instrument rated pilots. 
This number included airline transport pilots (ATPs). However, under 
Sec.  61.57(e), pilots employed by part 119 certificate holders 
conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 are excepted from the 
instrument recency experience requirement in Sec.  61.57(c). As of June 
23, 2015, the FAA estimated that 104,424 air carrier pilots were 
excepted. This left 201,552 instrument rated pilots that could 
potentially benefit from this rule provision. Of these pilots, the FAA 
estimated that only approximately 50 percent (100,776) were maintaining 
their recency. Of this group, the FAA estimated that only 25 percent 
(25,194) used an FFS, FTD, or ATD for recency and would potentially 
benefit from this rule provision. At an average instructor rate of $24 
per hour for an estimated 4 hours per year, the FAA estimated that it 
would cost about 2.4 million dollars per year for 25,194 pilots to 
complete the recency requirement. These estimates indicate that only 
12.5 percent of instrument rated pilots (excluding air carrier pilots) 
would benefit from this rule provision. The FAA finds this to be a 
reasonably conservative estimate.
    Furthermore, FAA notes that LOBO did not provide any alternative 
estimates, LOBO relied on non-scientific polling from AOPA, and LOBO 
failed to provide any substantiated statistics. The FAA believes new 
Sec.  61.51(g)(5) will significantly reduce cost to the public. As 
described in the NPRM, the FAA believes that new Sec.  61.51(g)(5) will 
likely increase the public's use of FFSs, FTDs or ATDs and notes that 
the majority of comments supported this conclusion. Because the FAA is 
adopting Sec.  61.51(g)(4) and (5) as proposed and no alternative 
estimates were provided, there will be no change to the NPRM 
methodology used for this estimate.
    As a general matter, the FAA notes that ATDs allow programming and 
practice of many instrument situations, scenarios, and procedures. The 
current capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs allow an instrument rated 
pilot to program and successfully practice simulated low visibility 
weather conditions, multiple approaches in a shorter period of time, 
emergency procedures, equipment failures, and other various flight 
scenarios that cannot necessarily be accomplished in an aircraft 
safely. Allowing the use of ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the requirement 
(and therefore the cost) of having an instructor present can result in 
more pilots being better prepared. This benefit could include executing 
flight scenarios they may not normally experience when accomplishing 
instrument recency in an aircraft, or in locations where they do not 
normally fly, or when practicing emergency procedures that are likely 
too dangerous to accomplish in an aircraft. This includes the unique 
capability of practicing identical instrument approach procedures to an 
airport the pilot may not have otherwise flown to before.
    Other than removing the term ``approved'' from the proposed rule 
language, as explained above, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) and (5) remain 
unchanged from the proposal.

[[Page 30239]]

3. Instrument Recency Experience Requirements
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  61.57(c) to allow 
pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month 
interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs.\24\ Additionally, for pilots who 
opt to use ATDs exclusively to accomplish instrument recency 
experience, the FAA proposed to no longer require an additional 3 hours 
of instrument experience and additional tasks to remain current.\25\ 
The FAA also proposed to allow completion of instrument recency 
experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Prior to this final rule, Sec.  61.57(c)(3) required 
persons using an ATD to establish instrument experience to complete 
the required tasks within the preceding 2 calendar months. Persons 
using an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, however, were 
required to establish instrument experience within the preceding 6 
calendar months. 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1) and (2).
    \25\ Prior to this final rule, for persons using an ATD for 
maintaining instrument experience, Sec.  61.57(c)(3) required an 
additional 3 hours of instrument experience and two unusual attitude 
recoveries while in a descending, Vne airspeed condition and two 
unusual attitude recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed 
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten commenters, including Redbird, American Flyers, and Eagle 
Sport, supported the proposal without change noting the anticipated 
cost savings that may encourage pilots to stay current, the ability for 
ATDs to enhance skills and improve proficiency, and the simplified rule 
language that will facilitate compliance.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and an individual 
commented that ATDs are much more advanced than they were at the time 
of the 2009 final rule, and that with these advances, it makes sense to 
allow the use of ATDs to meet instrument recency requirements in the 
same manner as with FFSs, FTDs, or aircraft.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA believes that the current design 
and technology of ATDs has advanced and provides a greater opportunity 
for the advancement of instrument skills and improved proficiency, as 
well as a wider range of experiences and scenarios, which justifies 
their increased use in Sec.  61.57(c)(2). This is also reflected in the 
final rule, ``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot 
Certification,'' published on April 12, 2016,\26\ which increased the 
ATD credit allowances for instrument rating certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Final Rule, ``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot 
Certification,'' 81 FR 21449 (Apr. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Society of 
Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), and one individual asked the FAA 
to revise the proposed rule language to expressly allow a pilot to meet 
the requirements for instrument recency experience in any combination 
of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.
    While the FAA stated in the NPRM that a pilot would be permitted to 
complete instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, 
FFS, FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would not have expressly allowed 
this. The FAA is therefore adding language to proposed Sec.  
61.57(c)(2) to expressly state that a person may complete the 
instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, 
or ATD. Furthermore, consistent with the changes made in Sec.  
61.51(g)(5), the FAA is removing the word ``approved'' from proposed 
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) because an FFS or FTD used to satisfy Sec.  
61.57(c)(1) is qualified, not approved, by the National Simulator 
Program under part 60.
    Two individuals opposed the provision. One individual believed that 
experience in an ATD cannot replicate that of an actual aircraft 
because piloting an aircraft involves many unexpected elements and 
stresses not present in an ATD. The other individual asserted that the 
instrument recency requirements are bare minimums and do not 
demonstrate proficiency, and that requiring more flight time would 
result in fewer accidents.
    The FAA disagrees with requiring a pilot to accomplish the 
instrument recency experience in an aircraft. The FAA has allowed the 
instrument recency tasks to be accomplished in an FFS, FTD, or ATD 
since 2009.\27\ The FAA did not propose to change the allowance of an 
ATD to satisfy instrument recency experience. Rather, given the 
technological advancements that have occurred in ATDs since 2009, the 
FAA proposed to align ATD use to the 6-month task completion interval 
and the required tasks consistent with FSTDs and aircraft. As 
previously explained in section III.A.2. of the preamble, ATDs are 
specifically designed to allow a person to replicate and execute 
instrument tasks just as they would in an aircraft. Therefore, the FAA 
finds that an ATD adequately replicates an aircraft for purposes of 
maintaining instrument recency. Section 61.57(c) does not require a 
pilot to experience variables and additional stressors that one may 
experience in an aircraft to maintain instrument recency. The FAA 
recognizes the importance of familiarity with these conditions and 
events; however, they are more attributable to training. An instrument-
rated pilot maintaining instrument recency under Sec.  61.57(c) has 
already accomplished the required instrument training and has already 
demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an 
examiner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Final Rule, ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 
Certification,'' 74 FR 42500, 42516-42517 (Aug. 21, 2009) (amending 
Sec.  61.57(c) to allow the use of aviation training devices, flight 
simulators, and flight training devices for maintaining instrument 
recent flight experience).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the comment that requiring more 
flight time in an aircraft will result in fewer accidents. The FAA 
finds that allowing a pilot to accomplish instrument recency 
requirements in an ATD or FSTD encourages more pilots to remain 
instrument current and provides the necessary experience to enable safe 
operation of an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). 
As the FAA explained in the final rule, ``Aviation Training Device 
Credit for Pilot Certification,'' \28\ the FAA believes that training 
in FSTDs and ATDs in combination with training in an aircraft 
reinforces the necessary pilot skill to rely solely on the flight 
instruments to successfully operate an aircraft in IMC. This mitigates 
any reliance on postural senses, sounds, or feelings that can otherwise 
lead to loss of control. The FAA further described that training 
devices do not require motion to be approved and that training devices 
cannot completely train the pilot to ignore certain erroneous sensory 
perceptions, but pilots develop this skill during the flight portion of 
their instrument training. Consistent with the final rule, ``Aviation 
Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,'' \29\ the FAA believes 
that instrument experience accomplished in ATDs is an effective 
procedural review and reinforces the necessary skills to properly 
interpret the aircraft's flight instruments, allowing successful 
operation of an aircraft in IMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 81 FR at 21456 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO) asserted that 
the FAA did not make a safety case to reduce the recency requirements. 
LOBO believed that the NPRM did not explain how this proposed provision 
would improve safety, and that to do so, the FAA needs more 
information, which was not presented. LOBO claimed the FAA should 
gather data regarding the following: How many instrument pilots are 
instrument current; how many pilots use an instrument proficiency check 
to maintain recency; how many pilots use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to 
maintain instrument recency; how many of those

[[Page 30240]]

pilots that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain instrument recency have 
been involved in an aircraft accident while flying under instrument 
flight rules; and how many more instrument rated pilots would maintain 
proficiency if the proposal were implemented. LOBO pointed out that 
AOPA polling indicates the average general aviation pilot is flying 
less than 100 hours per year. LOBO indicated that its own data 
indicates their average member is flying approximately 50 hours per 
year in a Lancair. Given these statistics, LOBO questioned whether 
instrument proficiency is possible for pilots who fly so few hours 
annually. LOBO also questioned whether reducing recency requirements 
for low activity instrument pilots would affect accident rates. Based 
on all of these comments, LOBO recommended the FAA research general 
aviation pilot training and experience, including instrument recency 
training methods, to better understand the impact on general aviation 
safety--positive or negative--of the NPRM.
    The FAA is aligning the requirements for accomplishing instrument 
experience in an ATD with the requirements for accomplishing instrument 
experience in an FSTD or aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person 
accomplishing instrument recency experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, 
or a combination, was required to, within the preceding 6 months, have 
performed: (1) Six instrument approaches; (2) holding procedures and 
tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of 
navigational electronic systems. Persons accomplishing instrument 
recency experience exclusively in an ATD, however, were required to 
have performed, within the preceding 2 months, the same tasks and 
maneuvers listed above plus ``two unusual attitude recoveries while in 
a descending V<INF>ne</INF> airspeed condition and two unusual attitude 
recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed condition'' and a minimum 
of three hours of instrument recency experience. This final rule amends 
Sec.  61.57(c) to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in 
ATDs by performing the same tasks required for FSTDs and aircraft, and 
at the same 6-month interval allowed for FSTDs and aircraft.
    While the data sought by LOBO would be useful, it does not 
currently exist.\30\ However, based on the12 years of experience the 
FAA now has evaluating and approving ATDs and the significant 
advancements in ATD technology, the FAA has no reason to believe the 
rule change would result in a decrease in safety. As explained in the 
NPRM, the FAA imposed more stringent instrument experience requirements 
on pilots satisfying instrument recency in ATDs because, in 2009, ATDs 
represented new technology. The FAA finds that significant improvements 
in current ATD technology have made it possible to allow pilots to use 
ATDs for instrument recency experience at the same frequency and task 
level as FSTDs. The FAA believes this rule change is further supported 
by the recent ATD rule published on April 12, 2016, which recognized 
ATD capabilities and increased the ATD credit allowances for instrument 
rating certification requirements. Furthermore, in 2014, the FAA 
revised AC 61-136A, ``FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and 
Their Use for Training and Experience'' to include stricter approval 
criteria for ATDs. The FAA also revised FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 11, 
Chapter 10 ``AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE'', Section 1 ``Approval, 
Oversight, and Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141,'' to 
improve FAA surveillance and oversight for the use of ATDs and to 
otherwise ensure their proper use. The stricter approval criteria and 
increased FAA oversight for ATDs ensures they are qualified and capable 
for pilots to successfully accomplish the instrument tasks described in 
Sec.  61.57(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The FAA referenced two studies in the final rule titled 
``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,'' which 
was published on April 12, 2016, that supported the use of 
simulation for flight training. 81 FR 21449. See Kearns, Suzanne 
``The Effectiveness of Guided Mental Practice in a Computer-Based 
Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM) Training,'' Ph.D. 
Dissertation (Capella University 2007); Carretta, Thomas R., and 
Dunlap, Ronald D., ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness in Flight 
Simulation: 1986-1997,'' United States Air Force Research Laboratory 
(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to LOBO's concerns about the proficiency of low 
activity instrument pilots, as previously stated, instrument-rated 
pilots have already demonstrated proficiency during their practical 
test. Instrument proficiency is considered ongoing unless one fails to 
maintain instrument recency in the previous 12 calendar months. In that 
scenario, one would be required to complete an instrument proficiency 
check (IPC) in accordance with Sec.  61.57(d) to exercise instrument 
rating privileges. While instrument-rated pilots may have a low number 
of annual flight hours, so long as they are complying with the 
instrument experience and instrument proficiency check requirements, 
they may exercise their instrument rating privileges. The FAA did not 
propose to change these requirements; any change to these requirements 
in this final rule would be out of scope.
    Lastly, the FAA does not find that aligning the instrument 
experience requirements in an ATD with the instrument experience 
requirements in an FSTD or aircraft will result in an increased 
accident rate. Rather, this ATD allowance should lower the accident 
rate by allowing pilots to regularly practice instrument tasks and 
maneuvers in a hazard free environment. The FAA believes that new Sec.  
61.57(c)(2) will increase the opportunities for pilots to maintain 
recency, reduce cost, and generally promote maintaining instrument 
recency.
    The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) provided 
several recommendations concerning FTDs, including expanding the 
allowable instrument recency experience, training, and limited checking 
elements from FFS to include Level 3 and 4 FTDs; allowing credit for 
circling approaches in Level 3 and 4 FTDs with sophisticated, wide-
angle visual systems but no motion system; and expanding the allowable 
credit in FFSs with the motion system turned off. RACCA further 
recommended reviewing current FAA FTD and simulator approval protocols 
to make them simpler and less labor-intensive for the FAA, operators, 
and contract training providers.
    The FAA is not adopting RACCA's recommendations because they are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    As discussed above, the FAA is adding language to the proposed 
provision to make clear that a person may complete the instrument 
experience in any combination of an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. Other 
than this additional language, Sec.  61.57(c)(2) remains unchanged from 
the NPRM.

B. Second in Command Time in Part 135 Operations

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  135.99 by adding 
paragraph (c) to allow a certificate holder to receive approval of a 
second in command (SIC) professional development program (SIC PDP) via 
operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow the certificate holder's 
pilots to log SIC time in operations conducted under part 135 in an 
airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC.\31\ As 
explained in the NPRM, the FAA believes that a comprehensive SIC PDP 
will provide

[[Page 30241]]

opportunities for beneficial flight experience that may not otherwise 
exist and also provide increased safety in operations for those flights 
conducted in a multicrew environment. The FAA proposed requirements in 
Sec.  135.99(c) for certificate holders, airplanes, and flightcrew 
members during operations conducted under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Prior to this final rule, a person serving as SIC in a part 
135 operation could log SIC time only if more than one pilot was 
required under the type certification of the aircraft or the 
regulations under which the flight was being conducted. 14 CFR 
61.51(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also proposed changes to certain logging requirements to 
enable the logging of SIC time obtained under a SIC PDP. The FAA 
proposed to revise Sec.  61.159(c)(1) to contain the requirements for 
logging SIC pilot time in an operation conducted under part 135 that 
does not require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the 
regulations under which the flight is being conducted. The FAA proposed 
to revise the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. Sec.  61.159 
and 61.161 to allow a pilot to credit SIC time logged under an SIC PDP 
towards the total time as a pilot requirements. The FAA also proposed 
to revise the definition of pilot time in Sec.  61.1, the prerequisites 
for practical test in Sec.  61.39(a)(3), and the logging requirements 
of Sec.  61.51(f) to reflect the allowance for SICs to log flight time 
in part 135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members 
under the type certificate or the regulations.
    Airlines for America (A4A) and two individuals supported the 
proposed SIC PDP without change. They noted the benefits of mentoring, 
crew resource management training, and the overall experience gained by 
accumulating more flight time in a complex environment.
    Several commenters suggested changes to proposed Sec. Sec.  135.99, 
61.159 and 61.51, which are discussed below.
1. Airplane Requirements
    In the NPRM, proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(2) would have required the 
aircraft operated under an approved SIC PDP to be a multiengine 
airplane.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Baron Aviation 
Services, National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Regional Air 
Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA), Tradewind Aviation, and two 
individuals commented that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 
should be included for use in an SIC PDP. These commenters asserted 
that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes are equal to or more 
complex than certain multiengine airplanes. These commenters indicated 
that high performance single engine turbo-propeller airplanes such as 
the Pilates PC-12, Socata TBM 700, and Cessna Caravan can provide more 
beneficial flight experience and training for an SIC than other general 
aviation operations. RACCA, Tradewind Aviation, and one individual 
explained that these types of airplanes can provide applicable 
experience using ``glass cockpit'' and flight management systems in 
real-world IFR, weather, cross-country, and night flight in an airline-
like environment.
    Further, AOPA, RACCA, and one individual stated the SIC PDP would 
provide opportunities for pilots to gain flight hours. As proposed, 
these flight hours could be used toward an airline transport pilot 
(ATP) certificate. Increasing the types of aircraft permitted to be 
used for an SIC PDP would provide even more opportunities for this 
professional growth.
    In light of these comments, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  
135.99(c)(2) to allow multiengine airplanes or single-engine turbine-
powered airplanes to be used in an approved SIC PDP. In Public Law 111-
216, Congress directed the FAA to ensure applicants for an ATP 
certificate have received flight training, academic training, or 
operational experience that will prepare the pilot to, among other 
things, function effectively in a multi-pilot environment, in adverse 
weather conditions, and during high altitude operations, and to adhere 
to the highest professional standards. The FAA finds that pilots can 
obtain the operational experience described in section 217 of Public 
Law 111-216 using either a multiengine airplane or a single-engine 
turbine-powered airplane under an approved SIC PDP. The FAA is revising 
proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(2) accordingly.
    The FAA is adopting the proposed requirement for the airplane to 
have an independent set of controls for the second pilot flightcrew 
member, which may not include a throwover control wheel. The FAA also 
notes that the equipment and independent instrumentation requirements 
for the second pilot in Sec.  135.99(c)(2)(i) through (viii) remain 
unchanged from the proposal.<SUP>32 33</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ A cockpit voice recorder (CVR) is not required for 
operations conducted under an approved SIC PDP. In accordance with 
Sec.  135.151, no person may operate a multiengine, turbine-powered 
airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration of 
six or more and for which two pilots are required by certification 
or operating rules unless it is equipped with an approved CVR that 
meets certain requirements. However, the FAA notes that an operation 
under an approved SIC PDP is not considered an operation for which 
two pilots are required by operating rules.
    \33\ The FAA notes that the airplane is still required to comply 
with the equipment requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.89 and 135.157, as 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Part 135 Flight Instructors
    In the NPRM, proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(4) would have required the 
assigned PIC in an operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to be 
an authorized part 135 flight instructor for the certificate holder.
    Bemidji Aviation Services, NATA, and RACCA did not support proposed 
Sec.  135.99(c)(4), asserting that there is no rationale to support the 
requirement for the PIC to be a qualified part 135 flight instructor. 
Bemidji noted that training PICs to be flight instructors would be time 
consuming and of little value because a new SIC under an SIC PDP will 
be in need of mentoring and real-world experience, rather than the type 
of training a part 135 flight instructor provides. Bemidji further 
contended that this requirement indicates that revenue flights are 
training flights rather than operations as a crew. However, Bemidji 
stated it would support certain crew pairing requirements. NATA 
believed that this requirement could limit operators from implementing 
a SIC PDP. RACCA stated that requiring the PIC to be a part 135 flight 
instructor is not necessary; however, initial operating experience (OE) 
under supervision by a flight instructor, additional line checks, or 
other intermittent quality assurance verifications are appropriate. 
RACCA stated that it appeared the FAA's intent was, from SIC initial 
qualification until the SIC was qualified to serve as PIC in part 135, 
an SIC logging flight time under an SIC PDP would be required to fly 
with a PIC who was a part 135 flight instructor. RACCA believed that 
the ``professional development'' element of the SIC PDP needs to be 
concentrated in the initial training, checking, and OE phases and that 
once the SIC has successfully completed that portion, he/she can 
continue to gain experience having completed that part of the program 
except for a possibility of more frequent quality assurance checks or 
proficiency checks in operators' programs than otherwise required for 
SICs in part 135. However, RACCA also stated the SIC flight time in 
revenue operations under the mentoring and supervision of an 
experienced part 135 PIC is more directly applicable to further career 
flying than hours in the following types of operations, which are 
currently acceptable: VFR flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner 
towing, traffic watch flying, and light sport flying. RACCA further 
asserted that because the SIC PDP is restricted to less risky cargo 
operations, this requirement only increases complexity and cost without 
any risk mitigation

[[Page 30242]]

benefit.\34\ One individual asserted that a low time pilot could 
benefit under the supervision of a seasoned PIC while receiving real-
world experience in a crew environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ RACCA's comments on this issue were submitted as to the 
regulatory evaluation. However, the FAA has included the comments 
here because they are related to the proposal and not specifically 
the cost/benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review of these comments submitted by Bemidji, NATA, RACCA, 
and individuals, the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed 
requirement for assigned PICs in a SIC PDP to be qualified part 135 
flight instructors. Under this proposed requirement, every operation 
conducted under an approved SIC PDP would have been required to have a 
qualified part 135 flight instructor assigned as the PIC. This proposed 
requirement was intended to create the appropriate training and 
mentoring environment to enable the proposed SIC PDP to support the 
Congressional directive and provide an effective method to acquire 
experience for ATP certification. In the NPRM, the FAA explained that 
the experience gained from working with and learning from a part 135 
flight instructor in a crew configuration would have provided valuable 
experience. However, commenters suggested alternatives to the 
requirement for the PIC to be a part 135 flight instructor. Upon review 
of these suggestions, the FAA has determined that a combination of 
these alternatives will be an equally effective method to support the 
Congressional directive while ensuring these SICs are gaining valuable 
experience for ATP certification.
    The FAA agrees with Bemidji, RACCA, and the individual commenter 
that a new SIC needs mentoring and real-world experience.\35\ The FAA 
finds this objective could be accomplished by requiring the assigned 
PIC to have a certain amount of experience and mentoring training, 
rather than requiring him or her to meet the full training and 
qualification requirements for a part 135 flight instructor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Section 135.99(c)(3) contains the requirements for a pilot 
serving as SIC under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In new Sec.  135.99(c)(4)(i) and (ii),\36\ the FAA is including 
crew pairing requirements for flights conducted under an SIC PDP. Prior 
to assignment as a PIC in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP, the 
PIC must complete mentoring training and have minimum experience at 
that certificate holder. The mentoring training must include techniques 
for reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, 
airmanship, and professionalism. Part 135 regulations require pilots to 
complete recurrent training to ensure that pilots remain competent in 
the performance of their assigned duties. The FAA has previously 
recognized that the necessary frequency for recurrent training is not 
the same for all subject areas. The FAA expects that PICs serving in an 
approved SIC PDP will use mentoring skills regularly and consequently 
these skills are less susceptible to degradation. Therefore, the FAA 
has determined that recurrent mentoring training must be completed at 
least every 36 calendar months. The FAA will include recommended topics 
for mentoring training in a new Advisory Circular (AC 135-43) on 
obtaining authorization of an SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Section 135.99(c)(4) contains the requirements for a pilot 
assigned to serve as PIC under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by commenters, mentoring should be provided by an 
experienced PIC. For mentoring to be effective, the FAA believes that 
the mentor (i.e., the PIC) must have a minimum level of experience and 
knowledge of the certificate holder's operations. Therefore, prior to 
assignment as a PIC in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP, the PIC 
must have been fully qualified to serve as a PIC for the certificate 
holder for at least the previous six calendar months. The FAA believes 
that in six months, the PIC would have conducted numerous flights with 
various environmental and operational factors which would have allowed 
the PIC to effectively consolidate his/her knowledge and skills of 
operations at that certificate holder. Certificate holders should 
encourage PICs serving in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP to 
provide observations and comments to be used in the data collection and 
analysis process.
    As proposed in the NPRM, Sec.  135.99(c)(1)(iii) requires the 
certificate holder with an approved SIC PDP to establish and maintain a 
data collection and analysis process that will enable the certificate 
holder and the FAA to determine whether the professional development 
program is accomplishing its objectives. Regarding RACCA's 
recommendations for initial OE, additional line checks, or other 
intermittent quality assurance verifications, the FAA agrees these 
types of events could be valuable components of an effective data 
collection and analysis process. In addition to the recommendations 
from RACCA, there may be other suitable methods to obtain relevant data 
for the data collection and analysis process. Therefore, the FAA will 
include RACCA's recommendations in the new Advisory Circular as 
possible data collection methods. The FAA notes that the data provided 
to the FAA by the certificate holder may be de-identified. The FAA 
further notes that records used for the data collection and analysis 
process will still be subject to record requirements, such as the Pilot 
Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, contrary to RACCA's statement, the SIC PDP is not 
restricted to cargo-only operations. Except as provided in Sec.  
135.99(d), any part 135 operator meeting the requirements of Sec.  
135.99(c) may voluntarily choose to seek approval of an SIC PDP. 
Section 135.99(d) prohibits certificate holders who are authorized to 
operate as a basic operator, single PIC operator, or single pilot 
operator from obtaining approval to conduct an SIC PDP.\38\ Section 
135.99(d) remains unchanged from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As further explained in the NPRM, these certificate 
holders--either by regulation or deviation--are not required to 
develop and maintain manuals that describe the procedures and 
policies to be used by the flight, ground and maintenance personnel. 
14 CFR 135.21. Additionally, these certificate holders are not 
required to establish and maintain an approved pilot training 
program under Sec.  135.341 or employ certain management personnel 
under Sec.  119.69. Because of the limited size and scope of these 
certificate holders' operations, the FAA does not believe that they 
would provide the environment necessary to foster an SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements for certificate holders in Sec. Sec.  
135.99(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) also remain unchanged from the 
proposal. However, because the FAA is withdrawing the proposed 
requirement for assigned PICs to be qualified part 135 flight 
instructors, the FAA is also withdrawing proposed Sec.  
135.99(c)(1)(iv), which would have required flight instructor 
standardization meetings.
    The FAA further notes that the requirements for persons serving as 
SIC in Sec.  135.99(c)(3)(i) through (iv) remain unchanged from the 
proposal.
3. Logging Requirements
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.159(c) to set 
forth the requirements for logging SIC pilot time in a part 135 
operation that does not require an SIC by type certification of the 
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. 
Proposed Sec.  61.159(c) would have allowed a commercial pilot to log 
SIC pilot time toward the hours of total time as a pilot required by 
Sec. Sec.  61.159(a) and 61.160, provided the SIC pilot time was 
obtained in part 135 operations conducted under a SIC PDP in accordance 
with Sec.  135.99 and the PIC certified in the SIC's logbook that the

[[Page 30243]]

SIC pilot time was accomplished under Sec.  61.159(c). The FAA also 
proposed that the SIC pilot time obtained pursuant to Sec.  61.159(c) 
may not be logged as PIC time even if the SIC were the sole manipulator 
of the controls and may not be used to meet the aeronautical experience 
requirements in Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (5) (e.g., cross-country 
flight time, night flight time).
    RACCA suggested the FAA allow a pilot to use the time logged under 
a SIC PDP toward the more specific flight time requirements for ATP 
certification set forth in Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (5), instead of 
only the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by Sec.  
61.159(a). RACCA asserted that there is little quantifiable difference 
in the value of experience between aircraft that require a two pilot 
crew and aircraft authorized to utilize a two pilot crew in specific 
circumstances. RACCA further asserted that experience obtained by a 
properly trained and checked SIC is more directly applicable to IFR 
complex airplane operations and subsequent career flying than hours in 
the following types of operations, which are currently acceptable: VFR 
flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner towing, traffic watch 
flying, and light sport flying.
    In response to RACCA's comments, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  
61.159(c) to allow pilots to credit time logged under a SIC PDP not 
only for total time as a pilot, but also toward the specific flight 
time requirements for ATP certification set forth in Sec.  61.159(a)(1) 
through (4) (e.g., cross-country flight time, night flight time, flight 
time in class of airplane, and instrument flight time). Under the 
proposal, the time logged under a SIC PDP would have counted toward the 
flight time requirements to serve as a PIC in part 135, which are 
located in Sec.  135.243. Section 135.243 categorizes the flight time 
requirements the same as Sec.  61.159(a). Because the SIC time logged 
under the SIC PDP may be used toward the total time, cross-country 
time, instrument time, and night time requirements of Sec.  135.243, 
the FAA finds that it should also count toward the same categories of 
flight time under Sec.  61.159(a). However, as explained below, the FAA 
maintains that the PIC flight time requirements in Sec.  61.159(a)(5), 
including the PIC cross-country flight time and PIC night flight time, 
must be met as a required pilot flightcrew member.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As proposed, the FAA is revising Sec.  61.159(a)(5) to 
clarify that to credit SIC time toward the 250 hours of PIC flight 
time required by paragraph (a)(5), the SIC must be a ``required'' 
flightcrew member performing the duties of PIC while under the 
supervision of a PIC. Under a SIC PDP, the SIC is not a required 
flightcrew member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the FAA maintains in the final rule that a SIC logging 
flight time under Sec.  61.159(c) is not permitted to log this flight 
time as PIC time even when he or she is the sole manipulator of the 
controls. If the SIC time were to count toward the requirements of 
Sec.  61.159(a)(5), a pilot could meet the ATP aeronautical experience 
requirements and transition to a part 121 SIC position directly from a 
SIC PDP, without serving as a part 135 PIC--which was not the FAA's 
intent. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA intended for Sec.  61.159(c) 
to promote an environment in which a pilot's career follows a 
progression within part 135 that includes the pilot serving as a PIC in 
part 135 operations before transitioning to an SIC position in a part 
121 operation. The FAA finds that allowing the SIC time to be used only 
toward the total time as a pilot requirements of Sec.  61.159(a) and 
the specific flight time requirements of Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (4) 
is consistent with the proposal's objective. A pilot may use the time 
accrued under a SIC PDP to meet the time requirements of Sec.  135.243 
to serve as a PIC under part 135; then, as a required flightcrew member 
in part 135, that pilot may accrue the required PIC airplane time for 
an ATP certificate before transitioning to a part 121 operation.
    Consistent with the changes to proposed Sec.  61.159(c), the FAA is 
also revising proposed Sec.  61.161(c) to allow pilots to credit time 
logged under a SIC PDP toward both the total time as a pilot required 
by Sec.  61.161(a) and the specific flight time requirements for ATP 
certification set forth in Sec.  61.161(a)(1), (2), and (4) (e.g., 
cross-country flight time, night flight time, and instrument flight 
time), except for the specific flight time that must be obtained in a 
helicopter.
    Upon further review, the FAA has decided to also allow SIC flight 
time to be logged during part 91 flight operations (e.g., repositioning 
flights) conducted for the certificate holder when the operation is 
conducted in accordance with the certificate holder's operations 
specification for the SIC PDP. The FAA has determined that these part 
91 flights share similar characteristics to the part 135 flights, such 
as multi-pilot environment, adverse weather conditions, and high 
altitude operations. The FAA has determined that if the certificate 
holder conducts these part 91 flights in a similar manner to its part 
135 flights, these part 91 flights can provide beneficial flight 
experience for the SIC while also increasing safety in these part 91 
flights. Furthermore, to log SIC flight time during a part 91 flight 
operation conducted for the certificate holder under an approved SIC 
PDP, the requirements of Sec.  135.99(c) must be satisfied. Therefore, 
the aircraft is still required to have an independent set of controls 
for the SIC, which may not include a throwover control wheel, and the 
minimum necessary equipment and independent instrumentation for the 
second pilot.\40\ These equipment and instrumentation requirements 
ensure that the SIC will be actively engaged as a pilot flying and 
pilot monitoring in both VFR and IFR conditions while conducting an 
operation under part 91 for the certificate holder. The flight time and 
duty period limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of part 135 
will also still apply. Additionally, the pilot serving as PIC in a part 
91 flight operation under an approved SIC PDP must be qualified and 
trained in accordance with Sec.  135.99(c)(4). The FAA finds that a 
pilot may obtain the operational experience described in section 217 of 
Public Law 111-216 during part 91 flights conducted for a certificate 
holder when the operation is conducted in accordance with Sec.  
135.99(c) and the certificate holder's operations specification for the 
SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 14 CFR 135.99(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising the proposed 
amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.159(c) and 135.99(c) to allow the logging 
of SIC flight time in operations conducted under parts 91 and 135,\41\ 
provided the flight operation is conducted in accordance with the 
certificate holder's operations specification for the SIC PDP.\42\ The 
FAA notes that to ensure the part 91 flights under an SIC PDP are 
conducted in a similar manner to part 135 flights, the operations 
specification for the SIC PDP will include specific requirements for 
these part 91 flights such as use of SOP, operational control, and 
recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The FAA is also revising proposed Sec.  61.51(e)(5) and 
(f)(3) and the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 to reflect 
this allowance.
    \42\ The FAA is adding new Sec.  61.159(c)(2), which requires 
the flight operation to be conducted in accordance with the 
certificate holder's operations specification for the second-in-
command professional development program. Consequently, proposed 
paragraph (c)(2) is now paragraph (c)(3), and proposed paragraph 
(c)(3) is now paragraph (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RACCA and AOPA both recommended additional revisions to proposed 
Sec.  61.159(c)(1). AOPA asserted that the FAA's proposed change to 
Sec.  61.159(c)(1) eliminates the ability of a required SIC to use 
logged SIC flight

[[Page 30244]]

time toward the total time requirement for an ATP certificate in Sec.  
61.159(a). RACCA recommended the FAA revise the former language of 
Sec.  61.159(c)(1)(iii) to ensure a required SIC can log flight time 
toward the total time requirements for an ATP certificate in Sec.  
61.159(a).
    Revisions to proposed Sec.  61.159(c)(1) are not needed to allow a 
required SIC to log flight time toward the requirements for an ATP 
certificate in Sec.  61.159(a). Section 61.51(a) establishes the 
requirement for persons to document and record training and 
aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate 
or rating under part 61. Section 61.51(f)(2) allows a person to log SIC 
flight time when that person holds the appropriate category, class, and 
instrument rating and more than one pilot is required under the type 
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight 
is being conducted. Further, Sec.  61.1(b) defines pilot time as 
including time in which a person serves as a required flightcrew 
member. Collectively, these regulations allow flight time logged as a 
required SIC to be used toward the aeronautical experience requirements 
for an ATP certificate as delineated in Sec.  61.159(a). Therefore, the 
FAA is not revising proposed Sec.  61.159(c)(1), as recommended by 
commenters, because the former language in Sec.  61.159(c)(1), which 
allowed a person to credit SIC flight time toward the total time 
requirements in Sec.  61.159(a), was redundant and unnecessary.
    The FAA notes that proposed Sec.  61.159(c) would have contained 
logging requirements for both SICs and flight engineers, similar to 
former Sec.  61.159(c). Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided to 
restructure Sec.  61.159(c), (d) and (e) for clarity. The FAA is 
relocating the flight engineer logging requirements, which were 
formerly in Sec.  61.159(c)(2) and (3), to Sec.  61.159(d). Thus, Sec.  
61.159(c) will contain only the SIC logging requirements under the SIC 
PDP. The FAA is redesignating former Sec.  61.159(d) as Sec.  61.159(e) 
and former Sec.  61.159(e) as new Sec.  61.159(f).
    In addition to proposed Sec.  61.159(c), the FAA proposed to revise 
the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 and the logging 
requirements in Sec.  61.51(f) to reflect the allowances for SICs to 
log flight time in part 135 operations when not serving as required 
flightcrew members under the type certificate or regulations. The FAA 
also proposed to revise Sec.  61.39(a)(3) to require a pilot who has 
logged flight time under the SIC PDP to present a copy of the records 
required by Sec.  135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of application 
for the practical test. Due to the reorganization of proposed Sec.  
61.159(c), the FAA is referencing Sec.  61.159(c), instead of Sec.  
61.159(c)(1), in the definition of ``pilot time,'' and in Sec. Sec.  
61.51(f)(3) and 61.39(a)(3). Other than updating the cross-reference to 
Sec.  61.159(c), the definition of ``pilot time'' and the revisions to 
Sec. Sec.  61.51(f) and 61.39(a)(3) remain unchanged from the proposal.
    The FAA also proposed to revise the logging requirements of Sec.  
61.51(e) to allow the part 135 flight instructor serving as PIC in an 
operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to log all of the flight 
time as PIC flight time even when the PIC is not the sole manipulator 
of the controls. As previously explained, the FAA is withdrawing the 
proposed requirement that the assigned PIC be a part 135 flight 
instructor. The FAA is therefore revising proposed Sec.  61.51(e) to 
reflect the requirements the FAA adopted in Sec.  135.99(c). 
Accordingly, Sec.  61.51(e)(5) now allows a commercial pilot or airline 
transport pilot to log all flight time while acting as an assigned PIC 
of an operation conducted in accordance with an approved SIC PDP that 
meets the requirements of Sec.  135.99(c).
4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC PDP
    RACCA noted that the regulatory evaluation accompanying the NPRM 
stated ``This proposal would provide an additional option for 
commercial pilots seeking to meet the minimum aeronautical experience 
requirements for the ATP certificate while also providing a strong 
foundational experience for a developing professional pilot. For a 
commercial pilot to utilize this option, an operator would have to meet 
the additional requirements proposed in the NPRM. Any operators, who 
chose to do so, would expect their benefits to exceed their costs.'' 
RACCA believed this statement implies an additional, optional training 
requirement for the SIC to count flight time under the SIC PDP toward 
the ATP experience requirements. RACCA noted that there is no 
requirement for an ATP certificate in part 135 cargo-only operations 
and therefore additional training for an ATP certificate imposes an 
economic burden by requiring training not applicable to the operation 
for which the SIC is being qualified.
    Neither the NPRM, nor the regulatory evaluation, proposed to 
require ATP training for an SIC to be able to log flight time under an 
SIC PDP. The statement in the regulatory evaluation was referencing the 
proposed new option for commercial pilots to log flight time under an 
SIC PDP to meet the minimum experience requirements for the ATP 
certificate. The proposed requirements for the SIC PDP did not include 
ATP training. A certificate holder is not required to have an SIC PDP. 
The FAA emphasizes that an SIC PDP is voluntary and would impose no new 
requirements on certificate holders conducting operations under part 
135 if they choose not to seek approval of an SIC PDP. Any certificate 
holders who choose to have an SIC PDP would expect the benefits of the 
SIC PDP to exceed their costs of the SIC PDP.
    One individual opposed the proposed SIC PDP, indicating the 
proposal was a money-making scheme that does not consider the negative 
consequences. This individual cited previous negative experience with 
non-required pilots in the right seat of the aircraft stating these 
unqualified non-essential pilots caused distractions for the PIC. 
Additionally, this commenter did not agree that a non-required SIC 
should be able to log flight time equal to the PIC unless the type 
certification requires an SIC.
    Without additional information, the FAA cannot address the specific 
circumstances presented by the individual commenter. However, the SIC 
PDP requires pilots assigned as a non-required SIC to meet the same 
training and qualification requirements as a required SIC. More 
specifically, Sec.  135.99(c)(3) requires the assigned SIC to meet the 
SIC qualifications in Sec.  135.245, the flight time and duty period 
limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of part 135, and the 
crewmember testing and training requirements for SIC in subparts G and 
H of part 135.\43\ The FAA notes that these requirements remain 
unchanged from the proposal. The FAA concludes that any concerns about 
unqualified pilots have been alleviated. Additionally, the FAA notes 
that although these non-required SICs will be able to log SIC flight 
time under an SIC PDP, there are restrictions. As described in the 
section on logging flight time, even if the SIC is the sole manipulator 
of the controls, the SIC cannot log PIC time. Additionally, pilots who 
use time logged under an SIC PDP to meet the aeronautical experience 
requirements for an ATP certificate will have a limitation on their 
certificate indicating that the pilot does not meet the PIC 
aeronautical experience requirements of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The assigned SIC is also required to meet the hazardous 
material training requirements in subpart K, if applicable.

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

[[Page 30245]]

5. Effective Date and Implementation
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the amendments to Sec. Sec.  
61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c) 
regarding logging flight time as a second in command in part 135 
operations would be made effective 180 days after publication of any 
final rule associated with the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged 
that these provisions affect part 119 certificate holders conducting 
operations under part 135 and will take more coordination and review by 
both certificate holders and the FAA.
    The FAA recognizes, however, that the coordination and review 
timeframe will vary among certificate holders. Certain certificate 
holders' manuals and training programs may already include some of the 
components of an SIC PDP, such as SOP for conducting operations with a 
two pilot flightcrew, approved SIC training curriculums, and approved 
CRM training for operations with a two pilot flightcrew. In these 
instances, the FAA anticipates the development of the remaining 
components of an SIC PDP to take less time than for certificate holders 
who must develop all components of an SIC PDP.
    Therefore, in the final rule, the amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.39, 
61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c) will be 
effective 150 days after publication of this final rule. This change in 
effective date will allow certificate holders and pilots to benefit 
from these provisions sooner than proposed, provided the certificate 
holder has developed all components of an SIC PDP and the certificate 
holder's principal operations inspector (POI) has authorized use of the 
SIC PDP in the certificate holder's operations specifications. The FAA 
notes that review and acceptance or approval of the various components 
of an SIC PDP by the certificate holder's POI is still required prior 
to authorization in the operations specifications. As such, certificate 
holders should plan accordingly to allow sufficient time for FAA 
acceptance or approval.
    As previously discussed, Sec.  135.99 allows a certificate holder 
to obtain authorization of an SIC PDP, which will be granted via a new 
operations specification (A062). To be eligible for approval of a SIC 
PDP, a certificate holder must be authorized to conduct IFR operations 
with a multiengine airplane or a single-engine turbine-powered 
airplane, that meets the aircraft, equipment, and instrumentation 
requirements of Sec.  135.99(c)(2). In accordance with Sec. Sec.  
135.323 and 135.325, the certificate holder must submit a revised 
training program to the POI for approval. The revised training and 
qualification program must include (1) curricula for SICs that will 
serve in an SIC PDP, (2) curricula for PICs that will serve in an SIC 
PDP to include mentoring training and CRM training for two pilot flight 
crew operations, (3) curricula for flight instructors that will conduct 
the training of PICs and SICs in an SIC PDP, and (4) curricula for 
check pilots that will conduct the checking of PICs and SICs in an SIC 
PDP. In accordance with Sec. Sec.  135.21 and 135.23, the certificate 
holder must also submit a revised manual to the POI for acceptance, 
which must include (1) standard operating procedures for operations 
with a two pilot flight crew, (2) duties and responsibilities of an 
SIC, and procedures to comply with the crew pairing requirements of 
Sec.  135.99. The certificate holder must also submit procedures for 
the data collection and analysis process required by Sec.  
135.99(c)(1)(iii). The POI will review the documentation submitted by 
the certificate holder. Once the documentation meets the requirements 
for approval or acceptance, as applicable, the POI may authorize the 
SIC PDP via a new operations specification. The FAA will be issuing a 
new Advisory Circular to provide more detailed guidance to certificate 
holders on obtaining authorization of an SIC PDP.

C. Instrument Recency Experience for SICs Serving in Part 135 
Operations

    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  135.245(a) required a person 
serving as second-in-command (SIC) in a part 135 operation conducted 
under IFR to ``meet the recent instrument experience requirements of 
part 61.'' The FAA proposed to remove the reference to part 61 in Sec.  
135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience requirements in 
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) and (2) to new Sec.  135.245(c). As explained in the 
NPRM,\44\ it is more appropriate for the express requirement for 
instrument recency experience to be listed in part 135 rather than by 
reference to another rule part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NPRM, ``Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions,'' 
81 FR at 29725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received comments from two organizations regarding this 
provision. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and 
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recommended the FAA 
revise proposed Sec.  135.245(c) to allow a pilot serving as SIC in a 
part 135 operation to use a combination of aircraft and FSTD to meet 
the proposed instrument recency requirements.
    The FAA did not intend to foreclose the option of using a 
combination of aircraft and FSTD to accomplish SIC instrument recent 
experience requirements. The FAA is adding language to proposed Sec.  
135.245(c)(2) to clarify that a combination of aircraft and FSTD may be 
used.
    AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw proposed Sec.  
135.245(c) and retain the current Sec.  135.245(a) language to enable 
persons serving as SIC in a part 135 operation under IFR to use ATDs 
for instrument recency. Because Sec.  61.57(c)(3) and (4) allow the use 
of ATDs to satisfy instrument recency requirements in part 61, AOPA 
believed the requirements of current Sec.  135.245(a) may be satisfied 
by the use of ATDs. AOPA also believed that, rather than eliminating 
the use of ATDs for SICs serving in part 135, the FAA should add a 
limitation to specific Letters of Authorization (LOA) if the use of a 
particular ATD is not appropriate.
    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA does not permit the use of ATDs to 
satisfy flight training, checking, and recency requirements in part 
135. In accordance with Sec.  61.4, the Administrator may approve an 
ATD for specific purposes. The FAA has never issued a LOA authorizing 
an ATD to be used to meet the qualification requirement of Sec.  
135.245.\45\ The FAA acknowledges the confusion created by referencing 
part 61 in Sec.  135.245(a).\46\ The reference to ``recent instrument 
experience requirements of part 61'' in Sec.  135.245 refers to Sec.  
61.57(c)(1) and (2) and (d). Therefore, the FAA is clarifying the SIC 
qualification requirements by including the express requirements of 
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) and (2) and (d) in Sec.  135.245(c) and (d) and by 
eliminating the reference to part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Advisory Circular AC 61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation 
Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience, explains 
that the FAA will issue an LOA which will specify the part 61 or 
part 141 provision(s) for which the specific ATD is approved for 
use. Further, the AC states that pilots may use ATDs in accordance 
with the LOA to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 
part 61.
    \46\ See Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gerald Naekel from Mr. 
Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel (June 18, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw the proposal in Sec.  
135.245(c)(2) for an instructor to be present when a part 135 SIC 
conducts instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA noted that, when the FAA 
modified the instrument recency requirements for part 61 in 2009, the 
FAA indicated that it did not want to require an instructor to be 
present when using an approved

[[Page 30246]]

training device, but the change was not reflected in the regulatory 
language.\47\ If the FAA's intent had been implemented, AOPA asserted, 
an instructor would not currently need to be present for a SIC in a 
part 135 operation to maintain instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA 
stated that the FAA has failed to explain why an instructor must be 
present for SICs in a part 135 operation, but not for all other pilots 
maintaining compliance with part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Legal Interpretation to Mr. Terrence K. Keller, Jr. from 
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Aug. 
6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIC instrument experience requirements were added to part 135 
on October 10, 1978, when the FAA published the ``Regulatory Review 
Program: Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operations'' final rule, 
which substantially revised the requirements for operations under part 
135.\48\ In the final rule, the FAA stated that the primary objective 
was to upgrade the level of safety by providing passengers traveling on 
a flight conducted under part 135 with a level of safety comparable to 
part 121, considering the differences between the operations. Further, 
the FAA stated that the final rule upgraded training, testing, and 
proficiency requirements to ensure that passengers on aircraft operated 
under part 135 are flown by well qualified crewmembers. Specifically, 
the FAA stated that, ``[s]ection 135.245 not only contributes to 
raising the level of safety in part 135, but also enhances crewmember 
qualifications.'' \49\ The FAA's position has not changed; operations 
under part 135 require a higher level of safety than operations under 
part 91 including a higher level of crewmember qualifications than 
required under part 61. Consistent with the higher level of safety 
required for part 135 operations, the FAA is retaining the requirement 
for an instructor to observe the tasks and iterations conducted in an 
FSTD. The FAA notes that this requirement has been relocated to Sec.  
135.245(c)(2)(iii). However, the FAA is no longer using the term 
``authorized instructor'' as proposed in the NPRM. The term 
``authorized instructor'' is defined in Sec.  61.1; it is not defined 
in part 135. Therefore, for consistency with part 135 requirements, the 
FAA is revising proposed Sec.  135.245(c)(2)(iii) to clarify that the 
tasks and iterations must be observed by a flight instructor qualified 
under Sec.  135.338 or a check pilot qualified under Sec.  135.337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Final Rule, ``Regulatory Review Program: Air Taxi Operators 
and Commercial Operations,'' 43 FR 46742 (Oct. 10, 1978).
    \49\ 43 FR at 46773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon further consideration, the FAA has decided to also include the 
instrument proficiency check (IPC) requirements of Sec.  61.57(d) in 
Sec.  135.245. Because a person who fails to satisfy the instrument 
experience requirements of Sec.  61.57(c) for more than six calendar 
months may reestablish instrument recency only by completing an IPC in 
accordance with Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA finds that the reference to 
``recent instrument experience requirements of part 61'' in Sec.  
135.245 referred to the instrument experience requirements of Sec.  
61.57(c)(1) and (2) and the IPC requirements of Sec.  61.57(d). The FAA 
recognizes that proposed Sec.  135.245 did not include the option to 
reestablish instrument recency through an IPC. However, the FAA did not 
intend to eliminate this option for SICs in part 135. The FAA intended 
only for proposed Sec.  135.245 to list the express requirements for 
instrument recency rather than reference the requirements of another 
part. Because the express requirements for instrument recency includes 
the IPC requirements of Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA is including the IPC 
requirements in new Sec.  135.245(d). However, to avoid confusion with 
Sec.  135.297, which contains separate and unique instrument 
proficiency check requirements for PICs, the FAA is not using the term 
``instrument proficiency check'' in Sec.  135.245(d). Instead, the FAA 
is using the term ``reestablish instrument recency'' for SICs.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Consistent with the technical amendment to Sec.  61.57(d), 
which is explained in section III.L. of this preamble, the FAA is 
not using the term ``practical test standards'' in the regulatory 
text of Sec.  135.245(d). Rather, for the reasons explained in 
section III.L., the FAA is codifying in Sec.  135.245(d) the areas 
of operation required to reestablish instrument recency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that Sec.  135.245(a) and (c)(1) remain unchanged 
from the proposal.

D. Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in Technically 
Advanced Airplanes

    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.\51\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add a definition of 
technically advanced airplane (TAA) to Sec.  61.1 and amend the 
training requirements to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot 
certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating to complete the 
10 hours of training in a TAA instead of a complex or turbine-powered 
airplane. In addition to these regulatory changes, the FAA proposed to 
revise the practical test standards for commercial pilot applicants and 
flight instructor applicants seeking an airplane category single engine 
class rating to allow the use of a TAA on the practical tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 14 CFR 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 35 comments on these proposed changes. Twenty-
seven commenters generally supported the proposal. LOBO and 6 
individuals did not support the proposal. One individual commenter did 
not opine, but asked for clarification regarding the definition of TAA. 
The following sections respond to these comments.
1. Definition of Technically Advanced Airplane
    The FAA proposed to define ``technically advanced airplane'' in 
Sec.  61.1 based on the common and essential components of advanced 
avionics systems equipped in an airplane, including a primary flight 
display (PFD), a multifunction flight display (MFD) and an integrated 
two axis autopilot. The FAA proposed that a TAA must include a PFD that 
is an electronic display integrating all of the following flight 
instruments together: An airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude 
indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator. 
Additionally, the FAA proposed that an independent MFD must be 
installed that provides a GPS with moving map navigation system and an 
integrated two axis autopilot.\52\ The proposed definition of TAA would 
have applied to permanently-installed equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The MFD may also include additional capabilities such as 
depicting weather, traffic, terrain, navigation aids and airport 
information, but these capabilities would not have been necessary to 
meet the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GAMA suggested the FAA work with industry in refining the 
definition of TAA to ensure that it is appropriately flexible to 
accommodate future technologies.
    The FAA recognizes that the proposed definition would have been too 
prescriptive. As explained throughout this section, the FAA has revised 
the proposed language in response to industry's concerns to make it 
more flexible and accommodating of new technologies. Furthermore, the 
FAA recognizes that the definition of TAA would have inappropriately 
embedded requirements, which may have inhibited future technologies 
from falling under the definition of a TAA.\53\ The FAA is

[[Page 30247]]

therefore revising the definition of TAA in Sec.  61.1 to contain a 
more general description of a TAA. TAA is now defined as an airplane 
equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system. The FAA is 
relocating the requirements regarding what a TAA must contain to Sec.  
61.129 by adding new paragraph (j). The FAA is also adding language to 
Sec.  61.129(j) to allow the FAA to authorize the use of an airplane 
that may not otherwise meet the requirements of a TAA. This additional 
language is intended to provide flexibility by allowing the FAA to 
accommodate future technologies that do not necessarily meet the 
confines of the regulatory requirements for a TAA in Sec.  
61.129(j).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ If the FAA were to adopt requirements in the definition of 
TAA, the FAA would not be able to grant an exemption from those 
requirements in the future because the FAA's regulations describe an 
exemption as a request for relief from the requirements of a 
regulation. 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

[[Page 30248]]

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

[[Page 30249]]

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

[[Page 30250]]

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

[[Page 30251]]

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 202-314-6000 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

[[Page 30252]]

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

[[Page 30253]]

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)

[[Page 30254]]

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 V<INF>h</INF> 
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 V<INF>h</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS or in a FFS 
or FTD that replicates an airplane with a V<INF>h</INF> 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 
V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> 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

[[Page 30255]]

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

[[Page 30256]]

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 V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS, or in a FFS or FTD that 
replicated an airplane with a V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> 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 
V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>H</INF> 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

[[Page 30257]]

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 
V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> 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

[[Page 30258]]

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 
V<INF>h</INF> 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 V<INF>h</INF> 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).

[[Page 30259]]

    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.

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

[[Page 30260]]

    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

[[Page 30261]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA recommended the FAA implement an online method to allow all 
pilots and airmen to request and obtain a temporary document confirming 
medical certification. This comment is also outside the scope of this 
rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that it is addressing AOPA's 
comment in a separate action.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Aerospace Medicine Safety Information System (AMSIS) will 
permit user(s) to print a valid medical certificate. AMSIS is still 
in development and is anticipated to become available in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is amending Sec. Sec.  121.383(c) and 135.95 as proposed. 
Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's own continued review of the 
proposal, the FAA has decided to also allow part 91, subpart K, program 
managers to issue temporary verification documents to flightcrew 
members who do not have their airman or medical certificates in their 
personal possession for a particular flight. The FAA did not originally 
consider providing relief to part 91, subpart K, program managers only 
because there were no current exemptions granted to these program 
managers. However, upon further review, the FAA finds that it is 
appropriate to include part 91, subpart K, program managers because of 
the similarity of part 91, subpart K, operations compared to part 121 
and 135 operations. Many similarities exist between part 91, subpart K, 
program managers and part 135 operators providing public air 
transportation, such as: Time, duty, and rest requirements, destination 
airport analysis programs, minimum equipment lists, recordkeeping, 
pilot training and checking, proving tests, approved inspection 
programs, and drug and alcohol misuse and prevention programs. In some 
instances, a part 91, subpart K, program manager is also certificated 
under part 119 to conduct part 135 operations.
    Specifically, part 91, subpart K, fractional ownership programs are 
subject to FAA oversight similar to that provided to air carriers 
(parts 135 and 121), with the exception of line checks and en-route 
inspections. FAA aviation safety inspectors conduct scheduled and 
unscheduled inspections, and surveillance of personnel, aircraft, 
records, and other documents to ensure compliance with the regulations. 
Given the similarities between parts 91, subpart K, 121 and 135, the 
FAA finds it appropriate to also prevent cancelation of flights under 
part 91, subpart K, in situations where a pilot certificate or medical 
certificate is valid

[[Page 30262]]

but not physically available. Therefore, consistent with the amendments 
to Sec. Sec.  121.383 and 135.95, the FAA is revising Sec.  91.1015 by 
adding new paragraph (h), which will allow a program manager to obtain 
approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew 
member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an 
approved certificate verification plan set forth in the program 
manager's management specifications. Consistent with the NPRM, the 
temporary verification document will remain a short-term solution for a 
period not to exceed 72 hours. The FAA is also revising Sec.  
61.3(a)(1) by adding new paragraph (vi) to permit flightcrew members to 
carry temporary documents provided by a program manager only on flights 
conducted for the program manager under part 91, subpart K.\138\ This 
is consistent with the NPRM, which proposed to add new Sec.  
61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow flightcrew members to carry documents provided 
by a certificate holder only on flights conducted for the part 119 
certificate holder, including ferry flights to reposition aircraft. The 
FAA notes that it is adopting Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(v) as proposed. The FAA 
is also adopting the proposed revisions to current Sec.  
61.3(a)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ The FAA proposed to redesignate current Sec.  
61.3(a)(1)(v) as new Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(vi). Now that the FAA is 
adding new Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(vi) to extend the relief to part 91, 
subpart K operators, this final rule redesignates current Sec.  
61.3(a)(1)(v) as new Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's continued review of the 
proposal, the FAA is making several clarifying changes to allow for 
smooth implementation of the final rule. Because the final rule allows 
a person to use a temporary verification document as an airman 
certificate or medical certificate, if certain conditions are met, the 
inspection requirements of Sec. Sec.  61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b) 
would have applied to the temporary document. However, to avoid any 
confusion, the FAA is revising Sec. Sec.  61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 
121.383(b) to expressly include the temporary verification document in 
the list of documents that must be presented for inspection upon 
request from the Administrator.
    Additionally, the FAA is revising Sec.  121.383(a) to clarify that 
an airman engaged in part 121 operations must have in his or her 
possession any required appropriate current airman and medical 
certificates or a temporary verification document issued in accordance 
with an approved certificate verification plan under new Sec.  
121.383(c).\139\ This change from what was proposed is consistent with 
the FAA's proposal to add new Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow a person 
engaged in flight operations within the United States for a part 119 
certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121, to 
hold a temporary verification document in place of an airman or medical 
certificate. The FAA will be issuing a new Advisory Circular to provide 
guidance to certificate holders/program managers on obtaining approval 
of a certificate verification plan. The FAA will continue to provide 
relief through exemptions until June 27, 2019 to allow sufficient time 
for certificate holders to obtain authority under the regulation from 
their Principal Operations Inspector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ In this final rule, the FAA is adding Sec.  121.383(c) to 
allow a certificate holder to obtain approval to provide a temporary 
document verifying a flightcrew memberr's airman certificate and 
medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate 
verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Military Competence for Flight Instructors

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed several changes to Sec. Sec.  61.197 
and 61.199 to accommodate renewal and reinstatement of flight 
instructor certificates by military instructors and examiners.\140\ In 
Sec.  61.197(a)(2)(iv), the FAA proposed to expand the 12-calendar-
month timeframe to 24 calendar months. The FAA also proposed to clarify 
in Sec.  61.197(a)(2)(iv) that a flight instructor would be able to 
renew his or her certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, 
within the previous 24 calendar months, the instructor passed a 
military instructor pilot proficiency check for a rating that the 
instructor already holds or for a new rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Prior to this final rule, a person renewing his or her 
flight instructor certificate under Sec.  61.197(a)(2)(iv) was 
required to submit a record showing that, within the preceding 12 
calendar months, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed 
Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check. Section 61.199 
required the holder of an expired flight instructor certificate to 
reinstate that certificate by passing a practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  61.199, the FAA proposed to revise paragraph (a) to permit 
a military instructor pilot to reinstate his or her expired flight 
instructor certificate by providing a record showing that, within the 
previous six calendar months, the instructor pilot passed a U.S. Armed 
Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an 
additional military rating.\141\ Additionally, the FAA proposed to add 
a new Sec.  61.199(c) as a temporary provision, which would have 
allowed military instructor pilots who obtained their initial flight 
instructor certificate under subpart H to reinstate that instructor 
certificate based on military competence rather than by completing a 
practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has accepted a flight 
instructor or examiner proficiency check conducted by the military 
to be equivalent to an FAA practical test for the purposes of 
issuing initial flight instructor certificates, adding ratings to 
existing flight instructor certificates, and renewing flight 
instructor certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received six comments on these proposed amendments. Three 
commenters supported the proposal. Two commenters recommended changes 
to the proposed rule language. One commenter opposed the proposal.
    The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) and Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) concurred with the proposed 
amendments to Sec.  61.199. AOPA also supported the proposed changes to 
Sec.  61.197. One individual, identifying himself as a retired U.S. Air 
Force instructor, supported having military credentials recognized by 
the FAA and providing civilian equivalent instructor ratings.
    One individual, identifying as a military instructor with the 
National Guard Bureau, agreed with changing the timeframe in Sec.  
61.197(a)(2)(iv) from 12 calendar months to 24 calendar months. 
However, the commenter suggested that the FAA revise the proposed rule 
language to require a record showing that, within the preceding 24 
months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an 
official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check 
equivalent to renewal requirements as stated in the practical test 
standards (PTS) for the rating sought. The commenter believed that this 
would validate an equivalent level of flight proficiency. The commenter 
explained that because some U.S. Armed Forces have instructors that 
only train specific tasks such as formation flying or tactical 
operations, this type of instruction is not an equivalent level of 
flight proficiency as required for the renewal of a FAA flight 
instructor certificate. The commenter also provided attachments 
described as comparable military instructor pilot proficiency checks 
accomplished on an annual basis in the U.S. Army. The commenter 
asserted that these annual checks are equivalent to or better than what 
would be necessary for the renewal of a flight instructor rating.
    As stated in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to clarify in Sec.  
61.197(a)(2)(iv) that a flight instructor may renew his or her 
certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the 
previous

[[Page 30263]]

24 calendar months, the instructor passed a ``U.S. Armed Forces 
military instructor pilot proficiency check'' for a rating that the 
instructor already holds or for a new rating. As explained in the NPRM, 
the FAA has accepted a flight instructor or examiner proficiency check 
conducted by the military to be equivalent to an FAA practical test for 
the purposes of issuing initial flight instructor certificates and 
adding ratings to existing flight instructor certificates.\142\ Upon 
further reflection, the FAA finds that the renewal requirements of 
Sec.  61.197(a)(2)(iv) should be consistent with Sec.  61.73(g), which 
allows a person to apply for and be issued an initial flight instructor 
certificate based on official U.S. military documentation of being a 
U.S. military instructor pilot or U.S. military pilot examiner. 
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.  61.197(a)(2)(iv) to allow 
renewal based on either ``an official U.S. Armed Forces military 
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 81 FR at 29740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the FAA disagrees with referencing the PTS within Sec.  
61.197(a)(2)(iv) because it would be too prescriptive. The military 
typically does not perform all the tasks from the PTS or Airman 
Certification Standards (ACS), as appropriate, required for civil pilot 
certification during their military instructor pilot proficiency 
checks. Rather, the military typically performs tasks or maneuvers that 
are not outlined in the PTS and/or ACS. The FAA believes that requiring 
a record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of 
application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces 
military instructor pilot proficiency check in an aircraft for which 
the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an 
additional rating, is sufficient to validate a flight instructor's 
equivalent level of competency. The FAA has long recognized and 
accepted military credit without further review.
    The individual commenter further asserted that if a military 
proficiency check meets the requirements for flight instructor renewal 
or reinstatement as described in the PTS and/or ACS, the FAA should 
modify Sec.  61.73(g)(3)(iv) to read: ``An official U.S. Armed Forces 
record or order that shows the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces 
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft as 
a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to 
the flight instructor rating sought that meets equivalent requirements 
of 14 CFR 61.185.''
    Section 61.73(g)(3)(i) already requires the applicant to present a 
knowledge test report that shows the person passed a knowledge test on 
the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under Sec.  61.185(a). 
Therefore, the FAA finds it unnecessary to revise Sec.  61.73(g)(3)(iv) 
to require the U.S. Armed Forces proficiency check to meet requirements 
of Sec.  61.185.
    This commenter also recommended the FAA revise proposed Sec.  
61.199(a)(3), which would have required a military instructor to show, 
within the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for 
reinstatement, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot 
or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military 
instructor rating. The commenter noted that additional military ratings 
are not acquired through a ``proficiency check.'' The commenter, 
therefore, recommended the FAA revise paragraph (a)(3) to require a 
record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the 
instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot 
examiner qualification program for an additional military rating that 
results in an additional rating to be added to the airman certificate. 
The individual also recommended the FAA add a new paragraph (a)(4) that 
would allow for reinstatement of a flight instructor certificate if the 
instructor can provide a record showing that, within the previous six 
calendar months, the instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor 
pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check equivalent to reinstatement 
requirements as stated in the PTS and/or ACS for the rating sought. The 
commenter explained this provision would facilitate reinstatement of an 
expired flight instructor certificate through a U.S. Armed Forces 
proficiency check that would be equivalent to the flight test described 
in the PTS.
    As the commenter pointed out, additional military ratings are not 
acquired through a proficiency check. Therefore, the FAA is revising 
proposed Sec.  61.199(a)(3) to more accurately reflect the process by 
which a military instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft 
rating qualification. The FAA is also dividing proposed Sec.  
61.199(a)(3) into two subparagraphs to make the reinstatement 
requirements for a military instructor pilot more consistent with the 
reinstatement requirements for a civilian holder of an expired flight 
instructor certificate, which are found in Sec.  61.199(a)(1) and (2).
    Accordingly, Sec.  61.199(a)(3)(i) now allows reinstatement of an 
expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot 
can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar 
months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot passed 
a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency 
check. The FAA finds that a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot 
examiner proficiency check is the military equivalent of a flight 
instructor certification practical test. Therefore, this requirement is 
consistent with Sec.  61.199(a)(1), which allows reinstatement of an 
expired flight instructor certificate if the civilian pilot 
satisfactorily completes a flight instructor practical test for one of 
the ratings held on the expired flight instructor certificate.
    Additionally, Sec.  61.199(a)(3)(ii) now allows reinstatement of an 
expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot 
can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar 
months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot 
completed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner 
training course and received an additional aircraft rating 
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is 
appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. The FAA finds that 
this requirement accurately reflects the process by which a military 
instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft rating. The FAA is not 
using the terminology ``qualification program,'' as the commenter 
recommended, because it is subject to interpretation. Instead, the FAA 
is using language that is consistent with the terminology of Sec.  
61.73(g)(3)(iii).\143\ The FAA notes that new Sec.  61.199(a)(3)(ii) is 
consistent with Sec.  61.199(a)(2), which allows a civilian holder of 
an expired flight instructor certificate to reinstate that flight 
instructor certificate by satisfactorily completing a flight instructor 
certification practical test for an additional rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ To be issued a flight instructor certificate with the 
appropriate ratings, Sec.  61.73(g) requires, in part, that the 
person present an official U.S. Armed Forces record or order that 
shows the person completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or 
pilot examiner training course and received an aircraft rating 
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that 
is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. 14 CFR 
61.73(g)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual asserted that military instructor pilots who allow 
their FAA flight instructor rating to expire reflect a lack of 
knowledge concerning 14 CFR part 61 that is pervasive in the military.
    The FAA disagrees. There are many possible scenarios other than ``a 
lack of knowledge'' that may lead to someone letting his or her flight 
instructor

[[Page 30264]]

certificate expire. In some instances, it may be intentional or an 
individual may be subject to events beyond his or her control. As such, 
the commenter's assertion is speculative. The FAA has determined that 
this provision will provide an equitable method of renewal or 
reinstatement for a FAA flight instructor certificate similar to the 
allowances currently described in Sec.  61.199(a)(1) and (2).\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ (1) A flight instructor certification practical test, as 
prescribed by Sec.  61.183(h), for one of the ratings held on the 
expired flight instructor certificate.
    (2) A flight instructor certification practical test for an 
additional rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual recommended the FAA revise Sec.  61.73 to add 
military navigators and naval flight officers who hold a FAA flight 
instructor certificate and who are military flight instructors to the 
list of persons eligible for an instrument flight instructor 
certificate. This commenter further asserted that there are numerous 
other military aeronautical specialties beyond pilots, navigators, and 
naval flight officers who have a skill set that may be valuable to the 
civilian aviation community. The commenter recommended that any 
military member that can produce documentation of service instructing 
any aviation crew position be exempted from the fundamentals of 
instruction written examination for a flight instructor certificate in 
Sec.  61.183(e) or for a ground instructor certificate in Sec.  
61.213(b).
    The FAA is not adopting these recommendations because they are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, the FAA disagrees 
with providing flight instructor equivalency for non-pilot instructor 
positions.
    The FAA is adding new Sec.  61.199(c) as proposed. As previously 
stated, Sec.  61.199(c) will allow military instructor pilots who 
obtained their initial flight instructor certificate under subpart H to 
reinstate that flight instructor certificate based on military 
competence rather than by completing a practical test. The FAA notes 
that Sec.  61.199(c) is a temporary provision that will expire on 
August 26, 2019. The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to provide 
guidance to designees and inspectors on how to facilitate instructor 
military competency approvals.

J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the Restricted Category for Pilot 
Flight Training and Checking

    Section 91.313(a) prohibits a person from operating a restricted 
category aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is 
certificated or in any operation other than one necessary to accomplish 
the work activity directly associated with the special purpose. Under 
Sec.  91.313(b), operating a restricted category civil aircraft to 
provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for 
which the aircraft is certificated is an operation for that special 
purpose. The FAA recently clarified, however, that flight training and 
testing for certification (e.g., for type ratings) in restricted 
category aircraft is not a special purpose operation under Sec.  
91.313.\145\ As such, these activities cannot be conducted in a 
restricted category aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Several operators hold exemptions that permit them to 
conduct pilot training for certification, practical tests (for type 
rating designations) in aircraft certificated in the restricted 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish Work Activity Directly Associated 
With the Special Purpose
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in Sec.  91.313(b) to list the 
following operations in restricted category aircraft as flights 
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a 
special purpose operation:
    <bullet> Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a 
special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated 
provided the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, 
and type ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the 
appropriate special purpose operation;
    <bullet> Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent 
flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided 
the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type 
ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate 
special purpose operation; and
    <bullet> Flights conducted to relocate a restricted category 
aircraft for maintenance.
    A number of commenters, including Queen Bee Air Specialties, Inc., 
GAMA, Air Tractor, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association 
(NAAA), noted that the proposed regulation would prohibit third-party 
training providers from conducting flight crewmember training in a 
special purpose operation. The commenters indicated that such a 
provision would eliminate agricultural aviation schools and decrease 
safety. The commenters noted that training by experienced instructors 
based on an approved curriculum in restricted category aircraft under 
the oversight of FAA inspectors enhances safety. The NAAA and the 
Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association (CAAA) commented that they 
interpreted the proposal to allow agricultural aviation operator 
``sponsored'' pilots to be able to attend third party training 
facilities.
    GAMA, NAAA, AOPA, and CAAA suggested revisions to proposed Sec.  
91.313(b) to ensure that training which is directly associated with the 
special purpose operation is permitted without an employment 
relationship existing between the trainee and the special purpose 
operator.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA and Colorado Agricultural Aviation 
Association all cited a recent survey conducted by the NAAA which 
found that operators who conduct agricultural operations have an 
average of 2.1 aircraft per operation, and that there was an average 
of 2.0 pilots per operation. Texas State Technical College, GAMA, 
NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying Service and Colorado Agricultural 
Aviation Association all noted that many of these small operators do 
not have capacity to dedicate an aircraft to training. NAAA, Farm 
Air, Curless Flying Service, Colorado Agricultural Aviation 
Association and Queen Bee Air Specialties specifically discussed the 
difficulty of maintaining a turbine aircraft and commented that most 
operators rely on third party training providers to provide 
instruction in a dual cockpit aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review of the extensive comments received, including a 
conference call with Air Force representatives on December 13, 2016, 
and a face-to-face meeting with representatives from the agricultural 
aviation industry during the comment period, the FAA agrees that the 
proposed rule language would have unnecessarily required all personnel 
receiving flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation to 
be employed by the operator providing the training.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ A record of conversation was placed in the docket for each 
of these meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation has 
historically been conducted by flight schools. Appendix K of part 141 
for pilot schools contains allowances for special curriculum courses 
for agricultural and external load operations. The FAA did not intend 
to end the longstanding practice of pilot schools conducting flight 
crewmember training in a special purpose operation. Flight crewmember 
training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is 
certificated is currently authorized in accordance with Sec.  91.313(b) 
and was not intended to be affected by this provision. It was the FAA's 
intent only to require pilot candidates to be an employee of the 
operator when accomplishing training or practical tests specific to the 
requisite type rating, a proficiency check, or recent flight experience 
requirements specified under part 61. The FAA has revised the language 
proposed in the NPRM to remove the employee requirement for

[[Page 30265]]

flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation.
    The FAA is retaining the provision proposed in Sec.  91.313(b) that 
allows pilots employed by operators performing special purpose 
operations to accomplish Sec.  61.58 proficiency checks and recent 
flight experience requirements set forth in Sec.  61.57 in the course 
of their employment provided the pilots hold the appropriate category, 
class, and type ratings. When a pilot is employed to perform a special 
purpose operation, satisfying recent flight experience and proficiency 
check requirements is necessary to accomplish the work activity 
directly associated with a special purpose operation. When a pilot is 
not employed to perform a special purpose operation, these operations 
are neither a special purpose operation nor an operation directly 
associated with a special purpose operation and, therefore, are not 
permitted under Sec.  91.313(a).
    The FAA is also retaining the provision from the NPRM that adds 
relocation flights for maintenance to the list of operations considered 
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the 
special purpose operation.
    GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. and CAAA all noted 
that the FAA's proposal to add this provision could suggest that other 
essential types of flights necessary to accomplish work directly 
associated with the special purpose, such as positioning flights, 
flights to deliver aircraft, and flights to trade shows, are excluded 
from expressly listed operations. GAMA stated that these flights are 
clearly within the scope of flights necessary to accomplish work 
directly associated with the special purpose, but that the industry 
could benefit from explicit recognition that Sec.  91.313(b) does not 
contain an exhaustive list of flights.
    The FAA has modified the final rule text to include flights to 
relocate a restricted category aircraft for delivery, repositioning, or 
maintenance to be considered as flights necessary to accomplish work 
activity directly associated with a special purpose operation. This 
change in the final rule permits many of the operations described by 
the commenters, such as deliveries from an aircraft manufacturer, 
change in ownership deliveries, relocation from one special purpose 
operation to another, or repositioning for the special purpose 
operation. The FAA notes that other types of flight events not 
expressly allowed by the regulation may be permitted if they are 
necessary to accomplish work activity directly associated with the 
special purpose operation.\148\ Any operation that does not meet this 
standard would require an exemption from the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ In the 1965 final rule, the FAA provided examples of 
operations necessary to accomplish the work activity directly 
associated with the special purpose operation which included 
allowing a farmer to conduct a flight for the purpose of showing 
which fields should be dusted or transportation of an insurance 
agent, surveyor, or inspector to the site of a special purpose 
operation. The FAA would also consider a flight conducted to 
relocate an aircraft to an area of a special purpose operation to be 
an operation necessary to accomplish the special purpose operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. LODAs for Training and Testing for Certification
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in Sec.  91.313(h) to allow operators 
of restricted category aircraft to apply for deviation authority for 
the purpose of conducting the following operations in restricted 
category aircraft:
    <bullet> Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a 
type rating provided the pilot being trained and tested holds at least 
a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class 
ratings for the aircraft type and is employed by the operator to 
perform a special purpose operation; and
    <bullet> Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA 
inspector in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide 
continuing oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
    The FAA emphasized that the proposed provision was intended to 
ensure that operators do not establish training schools for the sole 
purpose of issuing type ratings using restricted category aircraft. As 
proposed, operators would only be granted deviation authority under 
proposed Sec.  91.313(h) to conduct this training and testing for 
pilots who are employed by the operator and only when a type rating is 
required to complete the special purpose operation for which the 
aircraft was certificated and the operator is actively engaged in 
performing.
    A number of commenters opposed the proposed provision in Sec.  
91.313(h) that limited the ability to obtain a LODA to an employer 
providing flight training to its employees who perform a special 
purpose operation for that employer. Texas State Technical College, 
GAMA, L-3 Communications, and Queen Bee all suggested that such a 
limitation would result in a reduction in safety.
    More specifically, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. noted that the implication 
of the phrase ``is employed by the operator'' in proposed Sec.  
91.313(h)(1)(i) is that an employer/employee relationship must exist 
before any training may commence. The interpretation of this phrase 
could create the effect of ``restricting'' the aircraft from being used 
in agricultural aviation flight schools to conduct training of students 
planning to become agricultural pilots, by instructors employed by 
manufacturers and their dealers, or flight schools to perform pilot 
checkouts and transitional training, such as transitions from piston 
powered to turbine powered aircraft and by third party training for 
firefighting or other restricted category operations. The U.S. Air 
Force commented that proposed Sec.  91.313(h) would prohibit commercial 
vendors from providing the required USAF flight crewmember training; 
therefore, USAF flightcrew would not be able to receive training in 
restricted category aircraft. The USAF also indicated that removing the 
employment requirement would allow training in aircraft where it is not 
practical to obtain a type rating in an aircraft with a standard 
airworthiness certificate. Queen Bee stated that the proposal limits 
ability for dealers to provide training that is crucial to customers 
for their safety, success and comfort.
    As noted previously, the FAA has removed the proposed employment 
requirement for flight crewmember training in a special purpose 
operation. Third party training providers may continue to provide 
training in special purpose operations (e.g. firefighting, agricultural 
operations, and aerial advertising) absent an employment relationship 
provided the operation is a special purpose operation for which the 
aircraft is certificated.\149\ The LODA and employment requirements 
described in Sec.  91.319(h)(1)(i) is specific to training and testing 
to obtain a type rating and does not impede the special purpose flight 
training identified by Thrush, the USAF, and Queen Bee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 14 CFR 21.25(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GAMA, L-3 Communications, and AOPA all suggested that the FAA 
revise the proposal to permit individuals or entities (instead of 
operators) to apply for deviation authority and require that the 
trainee is employed by ``an'' operator to perform a special purpose 
operation instead of ``the'' operator applying to conduct the training 
in proposed Sec.  91.313(h)(1). They noted that this would help to 
ensure that the type rating training is required for the special 
purpose operation in which the operator is actively engaged but allow 
flexibility if the operator is unable to conduct the training itself. 
GAMA noted, however, that this provision still would hinder training of 
pilots trying to enter the

[[Page 30266]]

industry and not yet employed by a special purpose operator.
    L-3 Communications noted that modifying the proposal so that other 
entities could obtain a LODA would allow training of initial cadres of 
pilots by an aircraft manufacturer or by a properly certified training 
school with an authorization to conduct restricted category training. 
L-3 Communications noted that such a change would still achieve the 
FAA's goal of limiting the training in restricted category aircraft for 
certification to only those pilots who are employed to perform a 
special purpose operation.
    GAMA, Air Tractor, Queen Bee, and one individual generally noted 
that limiting the training and testing for the purpose of achieving a 
type rating in a restricted category aircraft to a pilot's employer 
will deny access to training for pilots that are not currently employed 
in a special purpose operation. Additionally, Air Tractor noted the 
possible burden on students, who must stay employed to finish flight 
training. GAMA also noted that some insurance underwriters may require 
pilots to obtain training that is only available through third party 
training providers. Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, Queen Bee and one 
individual all noted that these types of barriers to training will 
affect the ability to replace an aging pilot community.
    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA has historically placed operating 
limitations on the use of restricted category aircraft because the 
airworthiness certification standards for these aircraft are not 
designed to provide the same level of safety that is required for 
aircraft certificated in the standard category. The operating 
limitations set forth in Sec.  91.313 are designed to compensate for 
the different standards and provide the necessary level of safety for 
special purpose operations. In the final rule, the FAA has retained the 
employment requirement to prevent flight training and testing for the 
purpose of obtaining a type rating in restricted category aircraft 
without an explicit employment connection to special purpose 
operations. The operation of restricted category aircraft has always 
been limited to special purpose operations and those operations 
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a 
special purpose operation. Providing flight training and testing for 
certification to a pilot who does not perform a special purpose 
operation is not training in a special purpose operation and the hope 
of eventual employment in a special purpose operation is too attenuated 
to be necessary to accomplish the work activity associated with a 
special purpose operation.
3. Economic Burden
    L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, and Queen Bee 
generally noted that the proposed rule would have a significant adverse 
effect on businesses conducting operations with restricted category 
aircraft since nearly all of these businesses are small businesses. 
Texas State Technical College, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA 
and CAAA all noted that limiting the training and testing of pilots for 
the purpose of achieving a type rating in a restricted category 
aircraft to owners/operators will result in a major financial burden to 
certain entities. GAMA, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, Inc., and 
Queen Bee Air Specialties generally noted that many agricultural 
aviation operators lack the staff and aircraft to conduct training for 
their employees. Texas State Technical College and GAMA both noted that 
many of these small operators do not have in-house training staff. 
Texas State specifically noted that the cost of providing its own 
training would be a huge burden. Air Tractor commented that the FAA 
should not place more burdens on these operators and reduce safety by 
requiring training in restricted aircraft to be conducted by the 
operator and requiring the student to be an employee of the operator.
    Most of the commenters concerned with the employment requirement 
have described training operations in which restricted category 
aircraft are being used for flightcrew member training in a special 
purpose operation rather than flight training to obtain a type rating. 
The FAA has removed the proposed employment requirement for special 
purpose training in the final rule which may continue to be conducted 
without obtaining a LODA and without an employment relationship. As 
such, the economic burden associated with this provision would only 
affect operators who must obtain a LODA to conduct flight training for 
certification. These are very limited training operations, and they are 
currently conducted by operators using the exemption process. The FAA 
has issued several exemptions to facilitate this training.\150\ In all 
cases, the FAA has required the training to be accomplished by the 
employer as a condition of the exemption. If anything the provision 
will be relieving in nature to both operators and the FAA by 
eliminating the need for the exemption process. As discussed in the 
NPRM, the provision is not intended to allow operators to establish 
training schools utilizing restricted category aircraft for the purpose 
of issuing type ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Aero Contractors Ltd., Exemption No. 14396; Alaska Air 
Fuel, Inc., Exemption No. 14205; Sky Aviation Corporation, Exemption 
No. 12449; Columbia Helicopters, Exemption No. 11506; Airborne 
Support, Inc., Exemption No. 11470; Withrotor Aviation, Inc., 
Exemption No. 11427; CHI Aviation, Exemption No. 11383; Aero-Flite, 
Inc., Exemption No. 11276; Billings Flight Service, Exemption No. 
11383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Queen Bee specifically noted that this provision would limit its 
ability to vet pilots for operators that do not have two-place, dual 
control aircraft and/or the expertise in training. Queen Bee indicated 
it currently provides this training, which would be prohibited under 
the proposed requirements, for the U.S. company ARAMCO which responds 
to oil spills in the Red Sea with U.S. citizens as pilots.
    L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying 
Service and CAAA noted the effect on manufacturers developing and 
selling new restricted category type designs. L-3 Communications, Farm 
Air and Curless Flying Service asserted that the proposed rule would 
limit the ability of manufacturers to develop and sell new restricted 
category type design aircraft. According to the commenters, prospective 
buyers of new restricted category aircraft would not be able to receive 
training for their pilot employees. A manufacturer would have no 
incentive to produce a new design aircraft providing safety benefits 
and improvements based on new design features and technology insertion 
because pilot employees of a prospective buyer could not receive 
training.
    Most restricted category aircraft do not require a type rating and 
would be unaffected by this provision. Additionally, a manufacturer of 
a new large or turbojet powered aircraft could seek approval as a 
standard or transport category aircraft and, therefore, avoid any such 
``type rating'' training limitations. The FAA notes that the level of 
safety for restricted category aircraft may be lower than the level of 
safety for standard category aircraft. However, the restricted category 
level of certification does not eliminate any type certification 
procedural requirements, such as the need to comply with continued 
airworthiness requirements. To maintain an equivalent level of safety 
for the public the FAA imposes certain operating restrictions for 
restricted category aircraft. This provision is specific to facilitate 
training in restricted category aircraft requiring a type rating 
safely, not the promotion of restricted category aircraft production 
for public use.

[[Page 30267]]

4. Operations for Compensation or Hire
    The FAA also proposed a change to Sec.  91.313(c) to ensure that 
instructors providing flight training and designees conducting 
practical tests under a LODA may accept compensation for these 
operations. Likewise, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  91.313(d) to 
permit persons to be carried on restricted category aircraft if 
necessary to accomplish a flight authorized by LODA under paragraph 
(h).
    AOPA suggested revisions to Sec.  91.313(c) to eliminate confusion 
by breaking each of the operations identified into three separate 
subparagraphs and provided specific revised rule language. The FAA is 
retaining the language in paragraph (c) as it was proposed in the NPRM. 
The FAA merely proposed to add operations conducted under a LODA to the 
existing list of operations involving the carriage of persons and 
material that could be conducted without violating the general rule 
prohibiting the carriage of persons or property on restricted category 
aircraft for compensation or hire.
5. Exemptions
    GAMA raised concerns about the relationship between Sec.  61.31 and 
proposed Sec.  91.313(h). GAMA noted that, if applicants requesting 
exemption from Sec.  61.31 type rating requirements also must request 
exemption from Sec.  91.313 type rating training through this LODA 
process, they will be subject to an employment requirement. GAMA 
suggested that the FAA clarify that aircraft operators who hold 
exemptions from a type rating requirement do not need to also request 
exemption from Sec.  91.313(h) per the proposed LODA process or revise 
the LODA process to permit third party training as discussed 
previously.
    GAMA also noted that while the LODA process seems to provide a path 
for training in restricted category aircraft in pursuit of a type 
rating, they believe that this process will be burdensome to obtain and 
maintain. This process will be a barrier to a small business in that 
manufacturers that plan on building larger restricted category 
aircraft, that may not be exempted from the type rating requirement of 
Sec.  61.31, will have a more difficult time getting training for 
pilots. Air Tractor added that it and its competitor Thrush Aircraft, 
Inc. manufacture airplanes that, by definition, are ``large'' (greater 
than 12,500 lbs. gross weight). These airplanes are operated under 
exemptions from Sec.  61.31. Air Tractor requested that the FAA 
consider clarifying that large aircraft that are exempt from Sec.  
61.31 are also exempt from the LODA process as proposed in the new 
Sec.  91.313(h).
    Section 91.313 requires an operator to obtain a LODA to conduct 
training and testing for the purpose of obtaining a type rating in a 
restricted category aircraft. To the extent that some operators may 
hold exemptions that enable pilots to operate certain aircraft as PIC 
without a type rating, then Sec.  91.313 would be inapplicable. We 
note, however, that the general provision limiting the operation of 
restricted category aircraft to special purpose operations and flights 
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a 
special purpose operation remains applicable to all operations 
conducted--even operations conducted under these exemptions. No 
operator should utilize a restricted category aircraft outside the 
permitted operations in Sec.  91.313.
6. FAA Interpretation of Sec.  91.313
    Finally, AOPA commented that, for the last 50 years, operators of 
restricted category aircraft have been permitted to use such aircraft 
for type rating training, type rating practical tests, and PIC 
proficiency checks per Sec. Sec.  61.31 and 61.58. AOPA suggested that 
the FAA reversed long-standing precedent in 2015 when it concluded that 
this type rating training was not permissible under Sec.  91.313. AOPA 
noted that new FAA guidance for conducting pilot training and/or 
certification events in a restricted category aircraft was then 
outlined in Notice N 8900.295 which stated that flights necessary for 
PICs to obtain type rating designations in the restricted category 
aircraft required under Sec.  61.31(a) are not permitted by the 
operating limitations in Sec.  91.313.\151\ AOPA stated that none of 
the FAA's documentation provides sufficient explanation as to the 
reason for the recent change in interpretation of current Sec.  
91.313(b). AOPA commented that the FAA is now proposing to codify this 
new interpretation and implement a LODA process. AOPA added that 
conducting type rating training and practical tests in restricted 
category aircraft under certain circumstances and without a LODA has 
been an accepted practice for at least several decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ N 8900.295 Pilot Training and/or Certification Events 
Conducted in Restricted Category Aircraft became effective 05/05/
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA recommended that the FAA incorporate the operations from 
proposed Sec.  91.313(h)(1) into proposed Sec.  91.313(b). This 
approach would permit, without having to obtain a LODA, flight 
operations in restricted category aircraft which are necessary for PICs 
to obtain type rating designations in that aircraft, as required under 
Sec.  61.31(a). AOPA did not believe that the LODA approach adds any 
increased level of safety because the FAA has not articulated any 
reason for the recent reinterpretation of current Sec.  91.313. AOPA 
also believed that the FAA has not explained why the past accepted 
practice should not be codified.
    The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel was asked by the Director of 
the Flight Standards Service to provide a legal interpretation on the 
scope of Sec.  91.313 and whether the regulation permitted operators to 
conduct training and testing for certification in restricted category 
aircraft. The Office of the Chief Counsel concluded that the rule as 
written does not expressly permit this training and testing. As 
previously noted, the FAA has historically placed limitations on the 
use of restricted category aircraft because they do not meet the same 
standard as a standard category aircraft. When restricted category 
aircraft are used solely for the purpose of providing a type rating to 
a pilot who is not engaged in a special purpose operation, the 
operation cannot meet the express requirements of Sec.  91.313(a). The 
previous history relative to this type of training does not change the 
identified training limitation. Additionally, the FAA believes that 
this type rating training and testing needs FAA oversight and approval 
to ensure safe operations. Restricted category aircraft were never 
intended or designed to be used for FAA pilot training and 
certification. The FAA will retain the requirement for an operator to 
obtain an LODA specific to training and testing in restricted category 
aircraft that require a type rating when a standard category aircraft 
is not readily available or does not exist and only when a pilot will 
be performing a special purpose operation.
    AOPA noted that the FAA proposed to implement the changes to Sec.  
91.313 within 180 days of the final rule. AOPA further noted that if 
all of its recommendations are adopted, the implementation time frame 
should be reduced to 30 days. AOPA suggested that the proposed changes 
would be less complex to implement because the LODA process is 
eliminated and less coordination within the FAA is required.
    The FAA is not eliminating the LODA process and will retain the 
180-day effective date after publication. This will allow the FAA and 
operators time to become familiar with the guidance and process 
documents associated with the LODA requirements. The FAA has

[[Page 30268]]

retained the provision as proposed in the NPRM.

K. Single Pilot Operations of Former Military Airplanes and Other 
Airplanes With Special Airworthiness Certificates

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  91.531 to allow large 
airplanes, including former military aircraft and some experimental 
aircraft, to operate without an SIC if they were originally designed 
for single pilot operations.\152\ The FAA also proposed to reorganize 
Sec.  91.531 by placing all affirmative requirements in paragraph (a) 
and all exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Prior to this final rule, certain former military aircraft 
and some experimental aircraft that were designed to be flown by one 
pilot were required under Sec.  91.531(a) to have a SIC because they 
qualified as a large airplane. These airplanes were not eligible to 
obtain an LOA under Sec.  91.531(b) because they were not type 
certificated. Under Sec.  91.531(b), the Administrator was allowed 
only to issue LOAs for the operation of an airplane without an SIC 
``if that airplane is designed for and type certificated with only 
one pilot station.''
    \153\ As stated in the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to eliminate 
inconsistencies, redundancies, and obsolete provisions in Sec.  
91.531, including the language found in former paragraph (d). 81 FR 
at 29744. The FAA notes that former Sec.  91.531(d), which applied 
to part 91, subpart K aircraft, was redundant to Sec.  91.1049(d). 
Section 91.1049(d) states, ``[u]nless otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator, when any program aircraft is flown in program 
operations with passengers onboard, the crew must consist of at 
least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the program 
manager or the fractional owner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) expressed concern 
that, if read in isolation, proposed Sec.  91.531(b) could be 
interpreted as providing an exhaustive list of airplanes that may be 
operated without a SIC. AOPA stated that this would be a detrimental 
unintended consequence because airplanes type certificated for one 
required pilot are not listed in proposed Sec.  91.531(b). AOPA 
recommended the FAA clarify that proposed Sec.  91.531(b) is not an 
exhaustive list.
    Section 91.531(b) should not be read in isolation from the 
remainder of Sec.  91.531. Section 91.531 prescribes SIC requirements 
under subpart F of part 91. Subpart F of part 91 applies to large and 
turbine-powered multiengine airplanes and fractional ownership program 
aircraft. Section 91.531(b) should be read in context with paragraph 
(a), which expressly states that exceptions are provided in paragraph 
(b). The FAA finds that reading Sec.  91.531 in its entirety alleviates 
AOPA's concern. The FAA is adopting Sec.  91.531(b) as proposed.
    AOPA also recommended revising proposed Sec.  91.531(b)(3) to state 
``large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,'' rather 
than ``large or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,'' to prevent any 
confusion as to whether the paragraph applied to ``large airplanes'' or 
``large multiengine airplanes.''
    The FAA agrees that proposed Sec.  91.531(b)(3) may have caused 
confusion specific to large airplanes. The FAA is adopting AOPA's 
recommendation.
    Additionally, the FAA recognizes that Sec.  91.531 has been amended 
since the FAA published the NPRM on May 12, 2016.\154\ Effective August 
30, 2017, the FAA amended its airworthiness standards for normal, 
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes by replacing the 
current prescriptive design requirements of part 23 with performance-
based airworthiness standards.\155\ As part of the part 23 final rule, 
the FAA replaced the utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories in 
part 23 with new airplane certification levels. As a result, the FAA 
amended Sec.  91.531(a)(1) and (3) to incorporate the new airplane 
certification levels to ensure airplanes certificated in the future 
under new part 23 airworthiness standards would be addressed by Sec.  
91.531. In this final rule, the FAA finds it unnecessary to expressly 
incorporate the new airplane certification levels in the reorganized 
rule language of Sec.  91.531(a) because levels 3 and 4 airplanes are 
already covered by Sec.  91.531(a)(1), which requires a SIC for any 
airplane that is type certificated for more than one required pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions, 
proposed rule, 81 FR 29720 (May 12, 2016).
    \155\ Revisions of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, 
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, final rule, 81 FR 96572 
(Dec. 30, 2016) (part 23 final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the FAA is relocating the exception in proposed Sec.  
91.531(a)(2), which excepts from the SIC requirement any large airplane 
that is type certificated for single-pilot operation, to Sec.  
91.531(b)(1). This change from what was proposed is consistent with the 
NPRM, which intended to place all affirmative requirements in paragraph 
(a) and all exceptions in paragraph (b). The FAA notes that, rather 
than providing an exception for any large airplane certificated under 
SFAR 41 if that airplane is certificated for operation with one pilot, 
paragraph (b)(1) excepts any airplane that is certificated for 
operation with one pilot. It is therefore unnecessary to expressly 
reference the new airplane certification levels in paragraph (b) 
because Sec.  91.531(b)(1) will except from the SIC requirement any 
airplane that is certificated for single-pilot operation, including any 
airplanes certificated under new part 23 and any large airplanes 
certificated under SFAR 41. The FAA notes that the remaining 
requirements of Sec.  91.531 remain unchanged from the proposal.

L. Technical Corrections and Nomenclature Change

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a technical correction in appendix I 
to part 141, Additional Aircraft Category and/or Class Rating Course. 
In paragraph 4.(k), course for an airplane additional multiengine class 
rating, subparagraph (2) discussing the requirements for the commercial 
pilot certificate, the FAA noted that two paragraphs were designated as 
(k)(2)(iv). The FAA proposed to redesignate the second paragraph 
(k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v). The FAA received no comments on this 
correction. The FAA is redesignating the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as 
paragraph (k)(2)(v) as proposed.
    Additionally, to reflect the change in nomenclature regarding 
flight simulators, the FAA proposed to remove the words ``flight 
simulator'' wherever they appear in the sections the FAA determined 
needed to be revised and replace them with the words ``full flight 
simulator.'' The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators agreed with 
the proposed changes of wording to ``full flight simulator.'' The FAA 
is adopting the changes as proposed. The following sections are amended 
to reflect this nomenclature change: Sec. Sec.  61.31, 61.51, 61.57, 
61.109, 61.129, 61.159, 61.161, and section 4 of Appendix D to part 
141.
    Finally, as discussed in section III.F.2. of this preamble, GAMA 
recommended the FAA update its nomenclature to reflect the new Airmen 
Certification Standards (ACS). The FAA began transitioning from the 
practical test standards (PTS) to the airmen certification standards 
(ACS) on June 15, 2016. The transition from the PTS to the ACS is an 
ongoing process in which the FAA is enhancing the guidance it provides 
to applicants, instructors, and evaluators to better prepare applicants 
for knowledge and practical tests.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ The ACS offers a more comprehensive and integrated 
presentation of standards for the knowledge and practical test for 
an airman certificate or rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of GAMA's comment, the FAA recognized that the following 
sections still referenced the practical test standards: Sec. Sec.  
61.43, 61.57, 65.59, appendix A to part 65, and appendices A, B, C and 
D to part 60. The FAA has

[[Page 30269]]

decided to revise these sections to reflect the transition to the ACS.
    In Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS. 
The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for Sec.  61.57(d) to 
state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in 
the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory 
requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating 
ACS in Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in Sec.  61.57(d) the areas 
of operation for an IPC. The FAA finds that this revision is not a 
substantive change because the areas of operation and instrument tasks 
required for an IPC remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still driven by 
the standards for the instrument rating practical test.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ The areas of operation and instrument tasks are contained 
in new Sec.  61.57(d)(1). The FAA notes that it is redesignating 
former Sec.  61.57(d)(1) as new Sec.  61.57(d)(2), and former Sec.  
61.57(d)(2) as new Sec.  61.57(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  61.43(a)(1), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS 
as unnecessary. The FAA is also removing from Sec.  65.59 the reference 
to the aircraft dispatcher PTS, to be consistent with editorial changes 
made to other regulatory parts pertaining to certification of airmen. 
In its place, the FAA is requiring an applicant to demonstrate skill in 
applying the areas of knowledge and the topics outlined in appendix A 
of part 65 to preflight and all phases of flight, which must include 
abnormal and emergency procedures. The FAA emphasizes that this is not 
a substantive change. The areas of operation in the aircraft dispatcher 
PTS are currently based on an aircraft dispatcher's duties as they 
relate to the various phases of flight, including preflight, en route, 
and post-flight, and abnormal and emergency situations that could 
occur. Therefore, the practical test will still be based on the 
aircraft dispatcher PTS on the items outlined in appendix A of part 65. 
Additionally, the aircraft dispatcher PTS will continue to provide 
direction to examiners on how to administer a practical test.
    Additionally, the FAA is removing the references to the practical 
test standards for FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test 
Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, 
Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) in appendices A, B, C, and D 
to part 60. These references are replaced with ``FAA Airman Testing 
Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, 
Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.''

IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for Rule Provisions

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed three different effective dates for 
the various proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would have 
been effective either 30, 60 or 180 days after the date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register, depending on the type and 
scale of implementation needed for persons to begin complying with the 
amended requirements.
    The FAA received no comments on the proposed effective dates. The 
following discussion summarizes when the various amendments included in 
this final rule will become effective.

Provisions Effective 30 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule

    The following provisions will be effective 30 days after 
publication of the final rule:

<bullet> The revised definition of ``flight simulation training 
device'' in Sec.  1.1
<bullet> All definitions added to Sec.  61.1 and revisions to the 
definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 regarding the reference to 
FFSs rather than flight simulators and the allowance for training 
received or given in an ATD
<bullet> Substantive and clarifying amendments to Sec.  61.51(g)(4) and 
(5) regarding instructor requirement when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to 
complete instrument recency experience
<bullet> Amendment to Sec.  61.51(h) to include ATDs to accommodate the 
logging of training time in an ATD
<bullet> Amendments to Sec.  135.245 regarding instrument experience 
requirements
<bullet> Amendments to Sec.  61.195 regarding flight instructors with 
instrument ratings only
<bullet> Amendment to Sec.  61.99 and addition of Sec.  61.109(l) 
regarding credit for training obtained as a sport pilot
<bullet> Substantive amendment to Sec.  91.531 regarding single pilot 
operations of former military airplanes and other airplanes with 
special airworthiness certificates and clarifying amendments
<bullet> Typographical correction to appendix I to part 141
<bullet> Revisions related to the transition from the practical test 
standards to the airman certification standards in Sec. Sec.  61.43, 
61.57, 65.59, appendix A to part 65, and appendices A, B, C and D to 
part 60

Provisions Effective 60 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule

    The following provisions will be effective 60 days after 
publication of the final rule:

<bullet> Substantive amendments to Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) and (j) and 
appendix D to part 141 regarding the completion of commercial pilot 
training in technically advanced airplanes and clarifying amendments to 
Sec.  61.129(b)(3)(ii)
<bullet> Amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.412, 61.415(h) and 91.109(c) 
regarding sport pilot flight instructor training privilege
<bullet> Amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.197 and 61.199 regarding military 
competence for Flight Instructors
<bullet> Amendments to Sec.  61.31 regarding the allowance of a Sec.  
135.293 pilot-in-command competency check in a complex or high-
performance airplane to meet the training requirements for a complex or 
high-performance airplane, respectively

Provisions Effective 150 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule

    The following provisions will be effective 150 days after 
publication of the final rule:

<bullet> Revisions to the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 
regarding the allowance of SIC time obtained under the SIC PDP in 
accordance with Sec.  135.99(c)
<bullet> Amendments to Sec.  61.57(c) regarding instrument experience 
requirements
<bullet> Amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a), 
(c), and (d)-(f), 61.161, and 135.99(c) and (d) regarding logging 
flight time as a second in command in part 135 operations
<bullet> Amendment to Sec.  141.5(d) regarding pilot school use of 
special curricula courses for renewal of certificate

Provisions Effective 180 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule

    The following provisions will be effective 180 days after 
publication of the final rule:

<bullet> Amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.3(a) and (l), 63.3, 63.16, 
121.383(a) through (c), 91.1015 and 135.95 regarding temporary 
validation of flightcrew members' certificates
<bullet> Amendments to Sec.  91.313 regarding use of aircraft 
certificated in the restricted category for pilot flight training, 
checking, and testing.

V. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials

    To further implement this final rule, the FAA is revising or 
creating the following Advisory Circulars and FAA Orders.
    FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, 
Vol. 11, Chapter 10, Basic and Advanced Aviation Training Device, Sec. 
1, Approval and Authorized Use under 14

[[Page 30270]]

CFR parts 61 and 141 guidance concerning ATD's will be revised.
    FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, 
Vol. 5 Airmen Certification, Chapter 1 Direction, Guidance, and 
Procedures for Title 14 CFR parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 1, 
General Information, will be revised adding a new paragraph to 
facilitate application to the General Aviation and Commercial Division 
for new technology TAA designation.
    The Commercial Pilot--Airplane ACS will be revised to no longer 
require a complex or turbine powered airplane to be provided for part 
of the practical test, and the Flight Instructor PTS for Airplane will 
be revised to no longer require a complex airplane to be provided for 
part of the practical test.
    AC 135-43: This document will be a new AC (Part 135 SIC 
Professional Development Program) that will provide part 135 operators 
guidance on receiving FAA approval for training and qualifying pilots 
to act as an SIC and log that time for the ATP flight time 
requirements.
    AC 61-65, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors 
will be revised to include endorsements and guidance pertaining to the 
sport pilot provisions. This will include the recommended endorsement 
for qualifying a sport pilot only instructor to give basic instrument 
flight instruction to sport pilot candidates only. Additional guidance 
will be provided concerning reference to the General Aviation and 
Commercial Division, to qualify aircraft as TAA that otherwise do not 
meet the criteria defined in the rule definition.
    AC 141-1 Pilot School Certification will be revised to reflect the 
allowance to use graduates from special curricula courses as a counter 
for those pilot schools obtaining initial or renewal pilot school 
certification.
    AC 00-70: This document will be a new AC (Flightcrew Member 
Certificate Verification Plan) that will provide part 121 air carriers, 
part 135 air carriers/operators, and part 91, subpart K, program 
managers guidance on receiving FAA approval of a certificate 
verification plan to provide a temporary document verifying a 
flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate 
privileges.
    FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, 
Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 1, Direction, Guidance and 
Procedures for Parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 7, Amendments 
to Certificates and Replacement of Lost Certificates will be revised to 
provide guidance concerning temporary documents verifying a flightcrew 
member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an 
approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate 
holder's operations specifications/management specifications.
    FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, 
Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 2, Title 14 CFR part 61 
Certification of Pilots and Flight Instructors, Sec. 15, Issue a Title 
14 CFR part 61 Pilot Certificate Based on Military Competence; and FAA 
Order 8900.2, General Aviation Airman Designee Handbook, Chapter 7, 
Designated Pilot Examiner Program, Sec. 19, Accomplish Designation/
Issue Certificates as an ACR Employed Solely by a FIRC Sponsor, 
Paragraph 121, Flight Instructor Certificate and Ratings Issued on the 
Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Paragraph 122, 
Certification of Graduates; and Sec. 20, Accomplish Designation/Conduct 
Functions as an MCE, FPE, MC/FPE, GIE, and FIRE, Paragraphs 123-127, 
Background, General Information for MCE, FPE, and MC/FPE Designations, 
Issuance of a U.S. Private Pilot Certificate and Ratings Based on 
Foreign Pilot Licenses, Pilot Certificates and Ratings Issued on the 
Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Compliance with 
Other Provisions, respectively, guidance concerning flight instructor 
certificate renewal via military competence will be revised regarding 
the military flight instructor provisions included in this final rule.

VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the Final Rule

    In part 1, definitions and abbreviations, in Sec.  1.1, the 
definition of ``flight simulation training device'' is revised.
    In part 60, flight simulation training device initial and 
continuing qualification and use, appendices A, B, C, and D are revised 
to remove the references to the FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series 
(Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 
Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) to reflect the 
transition to the airman certification standards. These references are 
replaced with ``FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport 
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 
Instrument Ratings.''
    In part 61, certification: Pilots, flight instructors, and ground 
instructors, in Sec.  61.1, the definition of ``pilot time'' is 
revised. New definitions are added to Sec.  61.1(b) for ``aviation 
training device'' and ``technically advanced airplane.''
    Section 61.3(a) is revised to permit a pilot flightcrew member to 
carry a temporary document as a required pilot certificate for 
operating a civil aircraft of the United States. This document must be 
provided under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119 
certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 or a 
fractional ownership program manager conducting operations under part 
91, subpart K. Section 61.3(l) is revised to require the temporary 
document to be presented for inspection upon request of certain 
persons.
    Section 61.31 is revised to add an exception in Sec.  61.31(e) and 
(f) to allow a Sec.  135.293 pilot-in-command competency check 
completed in a complex or high performance airplane to meet the 
training requirements for a complex or high performance airplane, 
respectively.
    Section 61.39 is revised to add a provision that requires a pilot 
who has logged flight time under the SIC professional development 
program requirements of Sec.  61.159(c) to present a copy of the 
records required by Sec.  135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of 
application for the practical test.
    Section 61.43 is revised to remove the reference to the practical 
test standards to reflect the transition to the airman certification 
standards.
    Section 61.51(e) is revised to allow a commercial pilot or ATP 
acting as PIC of a part 135 operation to log all of the flight time as 
PIC flight time even when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the 
controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(e) is also revised to 
prohibit an SIC from logging PIC time when the SIC is the sole 
manipulator of the controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(f) 
is revised to reflect the allowance for SICs to log flight time in part 
135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members under 
the type certificate or regulations. Section 61.51(g) is revised to 
allow a pilot to accomplish instrument experience when using a FFS, 
FTD, or ATD without an instructor present. Section 61.51(h) is revised 
to include ATDs to accommodate the logging of training time in an ATD.
    Section 61.57(c) is revised to allow pilots to accomplish 
instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month interval allowed for 
FFSs and FTDs. In addition, the section is revised to no longer require 
pilots, who opt to use ATDs for accomplishing instrument experience, to 
complete a specific number of additional instrument experience hours or 
additional tasks. Finally, Sec.  61.57(d) is being revised to remove 
the reference to the practical test

[[Page 30271]]

standards and codifying the areas of operation and instrument tasks 
required for an IPC.
    Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight training received from a 
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a 
flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart 
H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical 
experience requirements for a recreational pilot certificate with 
airplane or rotorcraft categories.
    Section 61.109 is revised by adding paragraph (l) to allow flight 
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating 
who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the 
requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight 
training and aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot 
certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories.
    Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is revised to allow a pilot seeking an 
initial commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine 
rating to complete 10 hours of training, currently required in a 
complex or turbine-powered airplane, to also be completed in a TAA or 
any combination thereof. Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is also revised to 
include a reference to the requirements of paragraph (j) because the 
FAA is relocating the proposed requirements regarding what a TAA must 
contain to Sec.  61.129(j). Coordinated revisions are made in Sec.  
61.129(b)(3)(ii) for clarity and consistency purposes only.
    Section 61.159 is revised to permit flight time logged under an 
approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements 
for an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating.
    Section 61.161 is revised to permit flight time logged under an 
approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements 
for an ATP certificate with a rotorcraft category and helicopter class 
rating.
    Section 61.195(b) and (c) are revised to permit a flight instructor 
who holds only an instrument rating to provide instrument training 
without being required to hold aircraft category and class ratings on 
his or her flight instructor certificate if both the flight instructor 
and the pilot receiving training hold a pilot certificate with the 
appropriate category and class ratings. Flight instructors who wish to 
provide instrument training in a multiengine airplane must still have 
that additional category and class on their flight instructor 
certificate.
    Section 61.197(a)(2)(iv) is revised to allow a military instructor 
who has passed a U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot 
proficiency check within the 24 calendar months preceding the month of 
application to be eligible to renew his or her FAA flight instructor 
certificate based on that proficiency check. The section is clarified 
to indicate that a flight instructor is able to renew his or her 
certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the 
previous 24 calendar months, the instructor passed a military 
instructor pilot proficiency check for a rating that the instructor 
already holds or for a new rating.
    Section 61.199 is revised to permit a military instructor to 
reinstate his or her flight instructor certificate by providing a 
record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the 
instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot 
examiner proficiency check for an additional military rating or 
completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot examiner 
training course and received an additional aircraft rating 
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner. Section 
61.199(c) is added as a temporary provision to provide a reinstatement 
method for military instructors and examiners who allowed their FAA 
instructor certificates to expire before the regulations allowed them 
to add a rating based on military instructor competence.
    Section 61.412 is added to establish training and endorsement 
requirements for those sport pilot flight instructors who want to 
provide training for sport-pilot applicants on control and maneuvering 
solely by reference to the flight instruments.
    Section 61.415 is revised by adding new paragraph (h) to clarify 
that a sport pilot instructor may not conduct flight training on 
control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the 
instruments in an airplane that has a V<INF>h</INF> greater than 87 
knots CAS without meeting the requirements in Sec.  61.412.
    In part 63, certification: Flight crewmembers other than pilots, 
Sec.  63.3(a) is revised to permit a flight engineer flightcrew member 
to carry a temporary verification document as an airman certificate or 
medical certificate, as appropriate. This document must be provided 
under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119 
certificate holder conducting operations under part 121. Section 
63.3(e) is revised to require the temporary document to be presented 
for inspection upon request of certain persons.
    Section 63.16 is revised to update the process for replacement of a 
lost or destroyed airman certificate or medical certificate and to add 
a process for replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge test report.
    In part 65, certification: Airmen other than flight crewmembers, 
Sec.  65.59 and appendix A are revised to update the terminology to 
reflect the transition to the airman certification standards.
    In part 91, general operating and flight rules, Sec.  91.109(c) is 
revised to permit a sport pilot instructor who has obtained the 
endorsement 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 endorsement in an airplane with a V<INF>h</INF> greater than 87 
knots CAS.
    Section 91.313 is revised to permit operators of aircraft 
certificated in the restricted category to operate those aircraft for 
the purpose of providing pilot training and testing, to pilots employed 
by the operator to perform the special purpose operation, that leads to 
a type rating designation required by Sec.  61.31(a) (and an ATP 
certificate obtained concurrently with a type rating). The section is 
amended to allow flights to be conducted in restricted category 
aircraft for the purpose of designating examiners and qualifying FAA 
inspectors in the aircraft type and conducting oversight and 
observation of designated examiners.
    Section 91.531 is revised to allow certain large airplanes that are 
not type-certificated to be operated without a pilot who is designated 
as SIC, provided that those airplanes: (1) Were originally designed 
with only one pilot station; or (2) were originally designed with more 
than one pilot station for purposes of flight training or for other 
purposes, but were operated by a branch of the United States armed 
forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State to the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation with only one pilot. The 
section is revised to eliminate redundancies and reorganized for 
purposes of clarification by placing all affirmative requirements for a 
SIC in paragraph (a) and all exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).
    Section 91.1015 is revised to permit a fractional ownership program 
manager to obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a 
flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate 
privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in 
the program manager's management specifications.
    In part 121, operating requirements: Domestic, flag, and 
supplemental operations, Sec.  121.383(b) is revised to require the 
temporary document to be

[[Page 30272]]

presented for inspection upon request of the Administrator. Section 
121.383(c) is revised to permit a certificate holder to obtain approval 
to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman 
certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved 
certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's 
operations specifications.
    In part 135, operating requirements: Commuter and on demand 
operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft, Sec.  
135.95 is revised to permit a certificate holder to obtain approval to 
provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman 
certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved 
certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's 
operations specifications.
    Section 135.99 is revised to add paragraph (c) to permit a 
certificate holder conducting part 135 operations to receive approval 
of an SIC PDP via operations specifications (Ops Specs) in order to 
allow their pilots to log time as SICs in an operation that does not 
require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the regulations 
under which the flight is being conducted. The paragraph includes 
requirements related to the certificate holder, aircraft, and pilots 
involved. Section 135.99(d) states that certificate holders who have 
been approved to deviate from the requirements in Sec.  135.21(a), 
Sec.  135.341(a), or Sec.  119.69(a) are not permitted to obtain 
approval to conduct an SIC PDP.
    Section 135.245 is revised to remove the reference to part 61 in 
Sec.  135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience 
requirements in Sec.  61.57(c) and (d) to new Sec.  135.245(c) and (d).
    In part 141, pilot schools, Sec.  141.5(d) is revised to add an 
end-of-course test for a special curricula course approved under Sec.  
141.57 to the list of activities a pilot school may use for the FAA to 
issue or renew a pilot school certificate.
    Appendix D to part 141, commercial pilot certification course, is 
revised to allow commercial pilot certification courses to reflect the 
relief in Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii) that permits a pilot seeking a 
commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine class 
rating to complete the 10 hours of training in one, or a combination 
of, a TAA, a complex airplane, or a turbine-powered airplane.
    Appendix I to part 141, additional aircraft category and/or class 
rating course, section 4, paragraph (k)(2) is revised by redesignating 
the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v).

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866, and Executive Order 13563, 
direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation 
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended 
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact 
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies 
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they 
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule. We 
suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory 
evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
because this rule provides modest cost savings without imposing 
significant costs; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the 
foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an 
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the 
private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These 
analyses are summarized below, and a full discussion of the benefits 
and costs is provided in the regulatory evaluation included in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
    This final rule will provide regulatory relief and benefits to 
pilots, student pilots, flight instructors, military pilots seeking 
civilian ratings, and pilot schools.
Assumptions
1. Analysis Time Period--5 Years
2. Discount Rates--3% and 7%
3. Analysis Base Dollar Year--2016
Summary of Cost Savings
    The amendments in this final rule reduce or relieve existing 
burdens on the general aviation community and part 135 operators. 
Several of these changes result from comments from the general aviation 
community through petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, 
and requests for legal interpretation. The changes include: reduction 
in time and flexibilities in the use of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs; expanded 
opportunities for pilots in part 135 operations to log flight time; 
allowed alternatives to the complex airplane requirement for commercial 
pilot training; and, an allowance for pilots to credit some of their 
sport pilot training toward a higher certificate. This final rule does 
not result in additional costs.
    The present value total cost savings over the 5-year period of 
analysis is about $93.1 million with an annualized cost savings of 
about $22.7 million at a 7% discount rate. The following table 
summarizes unquantified and monetized cost savings over the 5-year 
period of analysis.

[[Page 30273]]



                                       Table 2--Summary of Rule Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total 5-year cost savings (millions of $2016
                                                                                    dollars) *
               Provision/area of regulatory relief               -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2016$         PV at 3%        PV at 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience in an            $12.5           $11.4           $10.3
 FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present.................
Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs............            83.1            76.1            68.2
Allowance to use less expensive basic airplanes for tests                    3.1             2.8             2.6
 instead of more expensive complex airplanes....................
Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot *.................            14.0            13.3            12.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    5-Year Total................................................           113.5           104.0            93.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Provisions With Unquantified Minimal Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second in Command for part 135 operations.
Instrument recency experience for SICs serving in Part 135 operations.
Flight instructors with instrument ratings only.
Sport pilot flight instructor training privilege.
Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot school certificate.
Temporary validation of flightcrew members' certificates.
Military competence for flight instructors.
Restricted category aircraft training and testing allowances.
Single pilot operations of former military airplanes and other airplanes with special airworthiness
 certificates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    The following table summarizes annualized cost savings at a 7% 
discount rate (annualized estaimtes at a 3% discount rate are almost 
the same in this analysis). The reduction in interval and time for 
pilots using ATDs comprises about 75% of the savings of this final 
rule.

              Table 3--Summary of Annualized Cost Savings *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annualized cost
         Provision/area of regulatory relief             savings at 7%
                                                              ($M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency                      $2.5
 experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD without an
 instructor present..................................
Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs.               16.6
Allowance to use TAAs for training and less expensive                 .6
 basic airplanes for tests instead of more expensive
 complex airplanes...................................
Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot........                3.0
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................               22.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimates may total due to rounding.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    Most of the parties affected by this final rule will be small 
businesses such as flight instructors, aviation schools, fixed base 
operators, and small part 135 air carriers. There are over 1,000 part 
135 air carriers alone. The general lack of publicly available 
financial information from these small businesses precludes a financial 
analysis of these small businesses.
    This final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. 
However, this final rule will not impose a significant impact on those 
entities because this rule provides modest cost savings without 
imposing significant costs.
    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA 
certifies that this final rule will not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as it 
imposes no new costs.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the

[[Page 30274]]

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and 
determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore would 
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an 
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor 
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    In the proposed rule the FAA identified three provisions with PRA 
implications that will require amended OMB supporting statements:
    <bullet> Instrument recency experience requirements (information 
collection 2120-0021),
    <bullet> Second in command for part 135 operations (information 
collection 2120-0021, 2120-0593, 2120-0039),
    <bullet> Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot 
school certificate (information collection 2120-0009).
    The FAA did not receive any comments regarding its proposed 
revision to any of the listed information collections. However, as the 
FAA was developing this final rule, it recognized that it had not 
provided an opportunity for meaningful comment regarding the proposed 
revisions to information collections 2120-0021, 2120-0039 and 2120-
0009.\158\ While the FAA had described the changes in burden it did not 
provide estimates of the total number of respondents affected by some 
of the changes. To ensure transparency and a meaningful opportunity for 
comment, the FAA published three notices seeking specific comment 
regarding the revisions being made to each of these information 
collections as part of this final rule.\159\ The revisions to these 
information collections will follow the notice and comment requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and will be submitted to OMB for review 
and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ The FAA notes that for one information collection, 2120-
0593: Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators, the FAA 
provided estimates of the number of respondents and the total 
burden. Therefore, the FAA provided adequate notice and an 
opportunity for comment regarding the revisions to information 
collection 2120-0593 in the NPRM. 81 FR 29749-52. The FAA further 
notes that this information collection was submitted to OMB during 
the comment period for the NPRM. OMB filed comment and continued the 
information collection on January 2, 2017.
    \159\ Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for 
Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: 
Pilot Schools-FAR 141, 83 FR 27820 (Jun. 14, 2018); Agency 
Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance 
of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: 
Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors, 83 FR 27821 
(Jun. 14, 2018); Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests 
for Comments; Clearance of a Revision to an Approval of an Existing 
Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-
Demand Operation, 83 FR 27822 (Jun. 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that the effective dates of the provisions of this 
final rule with information collection revisions have been adjusted 
from the effective dates that were proposed to address the Paperwork 
Reduction Act requirements for notice and OMB approval.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended 
Practices and has identified the following differences with these 
proposed regulations.
    The FAA notes that, under Sec.  61.159(c), pilots are permitted to 
log second in command flight time in part 135 operations when a second 
pilot is not required. ICAO standards do not recognize the crediting of 
flight time when a pilot is not required by the aircraft certification 
or the operation under which the flight is being conducted. 
Accordingly, all pilots who log flight time under this provision and 
apply for an ATP certificate would have a limitation on the certificate 
indicating that the pilot does not meet the PIC aeronautical experience 
requirements of ICAO. This limitation may be removed when the pilot 
presents satisfactory evidence that he or she has met the ICAO 
standards.
    Additionally, the FAA is allowing part 119 certificate holders 
conducting operations under parts 121 and 135 and program managers 
conducting operations under part 91 subpart K to issue temporary 
verification documents to flightcrew members who do not have their 
airman certificates or medical certificates in their personal 
possession for a particular flight. A temporary verification document 
may be used for a period not to exceed 72 hours. 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.'' Accordingly, the FAA is 
limiting the use of temporary verification documents to flights 
conducted entirely within the United States.

G. Environmental Analysis

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

VIII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has 
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and

[[Page 30275]]

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have 
Federalism implications.

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

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

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined 
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory 
cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. 
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found 
in the rule's economic analysis.

IX. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
internet by--
    <bullet> Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    <bullet> Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at 
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    <bullet> Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at 
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 60

    Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 63

    Aircraft, Airman, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 65

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

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 141

    Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools.

The Amendment

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

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  1.1, revise the definition of ``Flight simulation training 
device'' to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1   General definitions.

* * * * *
    Flight simulation training device (FSTD) means a full flight 
simulator or a flight training device.
* * * * *

PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING 
QUALIFICATION AND USE

0
3. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).


0
4. In appendix A, revise paragraph 1.d.(27) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *
    1. * * *
    d. * * *
    (27) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport 
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *

0
5. In appendix B, revise paragraph 1.d.(26) to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

* * * * *
    1. * * *
    d. * * *
    (26) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport 
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *

0
6. In appendix C, revise paragraph 1.d.(25) to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for 
Helicopter Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *
    1. * * *
    d. * * *
    (25) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport 
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *

[[Page 30276]]


0
7. In appendix D, revise paragraph 1.d.(28) to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for 
Helicopter Flight Training Devices

* * * * *
    1. * * *
    d. * * *
    (28) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport 
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. 
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).


0
9. Amend Sec.  61.1(b) as follows:
0
a. Add a definition of ``Aviation training device'' in alphabetical 
order.
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Pilot time;'' and,
0
c. Add a definition of ``Technically advanced airplane'' in 
alphabetical order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  61.1   Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Aviation training device means a training device, other than a full 
flight simulator or flight training device, that has been evaluated, 
qualified, and approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    Pilot time means that time in which a person--
    (i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
    (ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an 
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation 
training device; or
    (iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, 
full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training 
device.
* * * * *
    Technically advanced airplane (TAA) means an airplane equipped with 
an electronically advanced avionics system.
* * * * *

0
10. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec.  61.1(b), amend the definition 
of ``Pilot time'' by removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph 
(ii), revising paragraph (iii), and adding paragraph (iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.1   Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Pilot time * * *
    (iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, 
full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training 
device; or
    (iv) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is 
not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the 
regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the 
requirements in Sec.  61.159(c) are satisfied.
* * * * *

0
11. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec.  61.3, revise paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv), redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(v) as paragraph (a)(1)(vii), 
add paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi), and revise paragraph (l) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  61.3   Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise 
certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under 
Sec.  61.29(e);
    (v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for 
a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under 
part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that 
certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
    (vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States 
for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct 
operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary 
document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate 
verification plan; or
* * * * *
    (l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman 
certificate, temporary document in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(v) 
or (vi) of this section, medical certificate, documents establishing 
alternative medical qualification under part 68 of this chapter, 
authorization, or license required by this part must present it and 
their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section for inspection upon a request from:
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  61.31 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (g)(2) 
and (3), and (h)(1), remove the words ``flight simulator'' and add in 
their place the words ``full flight simulator''; and
0
b. Effective August 27, 2018, revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  61.31   Type rating requirements, additional training, and 
authorization requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section is not required if--
    (i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a 
complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training 
device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 
1997; or
    (ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an 
approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency 
check under Sec.  135.293 of this chapter in a complex airplane, or in 
a full flight simulator or flight training device that is 
representative of a complex airplane which must be documented in the 
pilot's logbook or training record.
    (f) * * *
    (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section is not required if--
    (i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a 
high-performance airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight 
training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane 
prior to August 4, 1997; or
    (ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an 
approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency 
check under Sec.  135.293 of this chapter in a high performance 
airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that 
is representative of a high performance airplane which must be 
documented in the pilot's logbook or training record.
* * * * *

0
13. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec.  61.39, revise paragraph 
(a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.39   Prerequisites for practical tests.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Have satisfactorily accomplished the required training and 
obtained the aeronautical experience prescribed by this part for the 
certificate or rating sought, and if applying for the practical test 
with flight time accomplished under Sec.  61.159(c), present a copy of 
the records required by Sec.  135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) of this chapter;
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  61.43, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

[[Page 30277]]

Sec.  61.43   Practical tests: General procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Performing the tasks specified in the areas of operation for 
the airman certificate or rating sought;
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  61.51 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv), 
(b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(iii) and (iv), (k)(1)(ii), and (k)(2)(ii), remove the 
words ``flight simulator'' and add in their place the words ``full 
flight simulator'';
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraph (e)(1)(i);
0
c. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraph (e)(5);
0
d. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraphs (f)(1) and (2);
0
e. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraph (f)(3);
0
f. Effective July 27, 2018, revise paragraph (g)(4);
0
g. Effective July 27, 2018, add paragraph (g)(5); and
0
h. Effective July 27, 2018, revise paragraph (h)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  61.51   Pilot logbooks.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Except when logging flight time under Sec.  61.159(c), when the 
pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which 
the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and 
class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
* * * * *
    (5) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot may log all 
flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation in 
accordance with Sec.  135.99(c) of this chapter if the flight is 
conducted in accordance with an approved second-in-command professional 
development program that meets the requirements of Sec.  135.99(c) of 
this chapter.
    (f) * * *
    (1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command 
requirements of Sec.  61.55, and occupies a crewmember station in an 
aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type 
certificate;
    (2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating 
(if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft 
being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type 
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight 
is being conducted; or
    (3) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is 
not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the 
regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the 
requirements in Sec.  61.159(c) are satisfied.
    (g) * * *
    (4) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight 
training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument 
aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate or rating provided an 
authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the 
person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content 
of the training session.
    (5) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight 
training device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument 
recency experience requirements provided a logbook or training record 
is maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.
    (h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when 
that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an 
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation 
training device.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  61.57 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2), (d)(1)(ii), 
(e)(4)(ii)(D), and (g) introductory text, remove the words ``flight 
simulator'' and add in their place the words ``full flight simulator'';
0
b. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(D), remove the 
words ``flight simulator's'' and add in their place the words ``full 
flight simulator's'';
0
c. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraph (c)(2), remove 
paragraphs (c)(3) through (5), and redesignate paragraph (c)(6) as 
paragraph (c)(3);
0
d. Effective July 27, 2018, redesignate paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) as 
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), redesignate the introductory text of 
paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and revise newly redesignated 
paragraph (d)(1).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  61.57   Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Use of a full flight simulator, flight training device, or 
aviation training device for maintaining instrument experience. A pilot 
may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in 
a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training 
device provided the device represents the category of aircraft for the 
instrument rating privileges to be maintained and the pilot performs 
the tasks and iterations in simulated instrument conditions. A person 
may complete the instrument experience in any combination of an 
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation 
training device.
* * * * *
    (d) Instrument proficiency check. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the 
instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for 
more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only 
by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument 
proficiency check must consist of at least the following areas of 
operation:
    (i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
    (ii) Flight by reference to instruments;
    (iii) Navigation systems;
    (iv) Instrument approach procedures;
    (v) Emergency operations; and
    (vi) Postflight procedures.
* * * * *

0
17. Revise Sec.  61.99 to read as follows:


Sec.  61.99   Aeronautical experience.

    (a) A person who applies for a recreational pilot certificate must 
receive and log at least 30 hours of flight time that includes at 
least--
    (1) 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor on 
the areas of operation listed in Sec.  61.98 that consists of at least:
    (i) Except as provided in Sec.  61.100, 2 hours of flight training 
en route to an airport that is located more than 25 nautical miles from 
the airport where the applicant normally trains, which includes at 
least three takeoffs and three landings at the airport located more 
than 25 nautical miles from the airport where the applicant normally 
trains; and
    (ii) Three 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 from the month of the test.
    (2) Three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the rating 
sought, on the areas of operation listed in Sec.  61.98 that apply to 
the aircraft category and class rating sought.
    (b) The holder of a sport pilot certificate may credit flight 
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating 
toward the aeronautical experience requirements of this section if the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and

[[Page 30278]]

class of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
    (2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized 
to provide the flight training; and
    (3) The flight training included training on areas of operation 
that are required for both a sport pilot certificate and a recreational 
pilot certificate.

0
18. In Sec.  61.109, amend paragraph (k) by removing the words ``flight 
simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight 
simulator'' and add paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.109   Aeronautical experience.

* * * * *
    (l) Permitted credit for flight training received from a flight 
instructor with a sport pilot rating. The holder of a sport pilot 
certificate may credit flight training received from a flight 
instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience 
requirements of this section if the following conditions are met:
    (1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and 
class of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
    (2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized 
to provide the flight training; and
    (3) The flight training included either--
    (i) Training on areas of operation that are required for both a 
sport pilot certificate and a private pilot certificate; or
    (ii) For airplanes with a V<INF>H</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS, 
training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by 
reference to the flight instruments, including straight and level 
flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives, 
provided the training was received from a flight instructor with a 
sport pilot rating who holds an endorsement required by Sec.  
61.412(c).

0
19. In Sec.  61.129:
0
a. Effective August 27, 2018, revise paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and 
(b)(3)(ii);
0
b. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (d) introductory 
text, (d)(3)(i), and (i), remove the words ``flight simulator'' and add 
in their place the words ``full flight simulator''; and
0
c. Effective August 27, 2018, add paragraph (j).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  61.129  Aeronautical experience.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered 
airplane, or a technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination 
thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating 
sought;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-
powered airplane; or for an applicant seeking a multiengine seaplane 
rating, 10 hours of training in a multiengine seaplane that has flaps 
and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with 
an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and 
associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such 
as a full authority digital engine control;
* * * * *
    (j) Technically advanced airplane. Unless otherwise authorized by 
the Administrator, a technically advanced airplane must be equipped 
with an electronically advanced avionics system that includes the 
following installed components:
    (1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a 
minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, 
heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;
    (2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a 
minimum, a moving map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation 
with the aircraft position displayed;
    (3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading 
guidance system; and
    (4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of 
this section must be continuously visible.

0
20. In Sec.  61.159:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend paragraph (a)(4) by removing the 
words ``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full 
flight simulator''; and
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise the introductory text of 
paragraphs (a) and (a)(5), revise paragraph (c), redesignate paragraphs 
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) and (f), add new paragraph (d), and 
revise newly redesignated paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  61.159   Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this 
section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot 
certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at 
least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:
* * * * *
    (5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, 
or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member 
performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision 
of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at 
least--
* * * * *
    (c) A commercial pilot may log second-in-command pilot time toward 
the aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section and the aeronautical experience requirements in Sec.  61.160, 
provided the pilot is employed by a part 119 certificate holder 
authorized to conduct operations under part 135 of this chapter and the 
second-in-command pilot time is obtained in operations conducted for 
the certificate holder under part 91 or 135 of this chapter when a 
second pilot is not required under the type certification of the 
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, 
and the following requirements are met--
    (1) The experience must be accomplished as part of a second-in-
command professional development program approved by the Administrator 
under Sec.  135.99 of this chapter;
    (2) The flight operation must be conducted in accordance with the 
certificate holder's operations specification for the second-in-command 
professional development program;
    (3) The pilot in command of the operation must certify in the 
pilot's logbook that the second-in-command pilot time was accomplished 
under this section; and
    (4) The pilot time may not be logged as pilot-in-command time even 
when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls and may not be 
used to meet the aeronautical experience requirements in paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section.
    (d) A commercial pilot may log the following flight engineer flight 
time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by 
paragraph (a) of this section and the total time as a pilot required by 
Sec.  61.160:
    (1) Flight-engineer time, provided the time--
    (i) Is acquired in an airplane required to have a flight engineer 
by the airplane's flight manual or type certificate;
    (ii) Is acquired while engaged in operations under part 121 of this

[[Page 30279]]

chapter for which a flight engineer is required;
    (iii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a pilot 
training program approved under part 121 of this chapter; and
    (iv) Does not exceed more than 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight 
engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 
hours.
    (2) Flight-engineer time, provided the flight time--
    (i) Is acquired as a U.S. Armed Forces' flight engineer crewmember 
in an airplane that requires a flight engineer crewmember by the flight 
manual;
    (ii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a flight 
engineer crewmember training program for the U.S. Armed Forces; and
    (iii) Does not exceed 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer 
flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
    (e) An applicant who credits time under paragraphs (b), (c), and 
(d) of this section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate 
with the limitation, ``Holder does not meet the pilot in command 
aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,'' as prescribed under 
Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
    (f) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot 
certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (e) 
of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of 
having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (e) of this section 
and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this 
section.

0
21. In Sec.  61.161:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend paragraph (b) by removing the words 
``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight 
simulator''; and
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  61.161   Aeronautical experience: Rotorcraft category and 
helicopter class rating.

* * * * *
    (c) Flight time logged under Sec.  61.159(c) may be counted toward 
the 1,200 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of 
this section and the flight time requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), 
(2), and (4) of this section, except for the specific helicopter flight 
time requirements.
    (d) An applicant who credits time under paragraph (c) of this 
section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the 
limitation, ``Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical 
experience requirements of ICAO,'' as prescribed under Article 39 of 
the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
    (e) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot 
certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (d) 
of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of 
having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (d) of this section 
and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this 
section.


0
22. In Sec.  61.195, revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) and add 
paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.195   Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

* * * * *
    (b) Aircraft ratings. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, a flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any 
aircraft unless the flight instructor:
    (1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable 
category and class rating;
    (2) Holds a pilot certificate with the applicable category and 
class rating; and
    (3) Meets the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section, if 
applicable.
    (c) Instrument rating. A flight instructor may conduct 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 airline transport pilot certificates if the following 
requirements are met:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the 
flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the 
aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight 
instructor certificate, and--
    (i) Meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section; or
    (ii) Hold a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot 
certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the 
aircraft in which the instrument training is conducted provided the 
pilot receiving instrument training holds a pilot certificate with 
category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft in which the 
instrument training is being conducted.
    (2) If the flight instructor is conducting the instrument training 
in a multiengine airplane, the flight instructor must hold an 
instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument 
training on his or her flight instructor certificate and meet the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Training in an aircraft that requires a type rating. A flight 
instructor may not give flight instruction, including instrument 
training, in an aircraft that requires the pilot in command to hold a 
type rating unless the flight instructor holds a type rating for that 
aircraft on his or her pilot certificate.
* * * * *
    (l) Training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by 
reference to the instruments. A flight instructor may conduct flight 
training on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to 
the flight instruments, provided the flight instructor--
    (1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable 
category and class rating; or
    (2) Holds an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for 
the training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and holds a 
commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate 
with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft in 
which the training is conducted provided the pilot receiving the 
training holds a pilot certificate with category and class ratings 
appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is being conducted.

0
23. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec.  61.197, revise paragraphs 
(a)(2)(iv) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.197   Renewal requirements for flight instructor 
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the 
month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. 
Armed Forces military instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency 
check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a 
rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating.
* * * * *
    (c) The practical test required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
may be accomplished in a full flight simulator or flight training 
device if the test is accomplished pursuant to an approved course 
conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this 
chapter.

0
24. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec.  61.199, add paragraphs (a)(3), 
(c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.199   Reinstatement requirements of an expired flight 
instructor certificate.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For military instructor pilots, provide a record showing that, 
within

[[Page 30280]]

the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for 
reinstatement, the person--
    (i) Passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner 
proficiency check; or
    (ii) Completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot 
examiner training course and received an additional aircraft rating 
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is 
appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought.
* * * * *
    (c) Certain military instructors and examiners. The holder of an 
expired flight instructor certificate issued prior to October 20, 2009, 
may apply for reinstatement of that certificate by presenting the 
following:
    (1) A record showing that, since the date the flight instructor 
certificate was issued, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces 
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional 
military rating; and
    (2) A knowledge test report that shows the person passed a 
knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under Sec.  
61.185(a) appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought and the 
knowledge test was passed within the preceding 24 calendar months prior 
to the month of application.
    (d) Expiration date. The requirements of paragraph (c) of this 
section will expire on August 26, 2019.

0
25. Effective August 27, 2018, add Sec.  61.412 to read as follows:


Sec.  61.412   Do I need additional training to provide instruction on 
control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the 
instruments in a light-sport aircraft based on VH?

    To provide flight training under Sec.  61.93(e)(12) on control and 
maneuvering an airplane 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, a 
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must:
    (a) Hold an endorsement required by Sec.  61.327(b);
    (b) Receive and log a minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3 
hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane 
with a V<INF>H</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS or in a full flight 
simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device that 
replicates an airplane with a V<INF>H</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS; 
and
    (c) Receive a one-time endorsement in his or her logbook from an 
instructor authorized under subpart H of this part who certifies that 
the person is proficient in providing training on control and 
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments in an 
airplane with a V<INF>H</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS. This flight 
training must include straight and level flight, turns, descents, 
climbs, use of radio navigation aids, and ATC directives.

0
26. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec.  61.415, redesignate paragraphs 
(h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) and (j) and add paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.415   What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate 
with a sport pilot rating?

* * * * *
    (h) You may not provide training on the control and maneuvering of 
an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in a light sport 
airplane with a V<INF>h</INF> greater than 87 knots CAS unless you meet 
the requirements in Sec.  61.412.
* * * * *

PART 63--CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS

0
27. The authority citation for part 63 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
28. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec.  63.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3   Certificates and ratings required.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person 
may act as a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry 
unless that person has in his or her physical possession or readily 
accessible in the aircraft:
    (1) A current flight engineer certificate with appropriate ratings 
issued to that person under this part;
    (2) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise 
certificate privileges issued by the Airman Certification Branch under 
Sec.  63.16(f); or
    (3) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for 
a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under 
part 121 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that 
certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan.
    (b) A person may act as a flight engineer of an aircraft only if 
that person holds a current second-class (or higher) medical 
certificate issued to that person under part 67 of this chapter, or 
other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's 
physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.
    (c) When the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a 
current flight engineer certificate issued by the country in which the 
aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification 
for that certificate, may be used. Also, in the case of a flight 
engineer certificate issued under Sec.  63.42, evidence of current 
medical qualification accepted for the issue of that certificate is 
used in place of a medical certificate.
    (d) No person may act as a flight navigator of a civil aircraft of 
U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession 
a current flight navigator certificate issued to him or her under this 
part and a second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to him 
or her under part 67 of this chapter within the preceding 12 months. 
However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a 
current flight navigator certificate issued by the country in which the 
aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification 
for that certificate, may be used.
    (e) Each person who holds a flight engineer or flight navigator 
certificate, medical certificate, or temporary document in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall present it for inspection 
upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative 
of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, 
or local law enforcement officer.

0
29. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec.  63.16 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.16   Change of name; replacement of lost or destroyed 
certificate.

    (a) An application for a change of name on a certificate issued 
under this part must be accompanied by the applicant's current 
certificate and the marriage license, court order, or other document 
verifying the change. The documents are returned to the applicant after 
inspection.
    (b) A request for a replacement of a lost or destroyed airman 
certificate issued under this part must be made:
    (1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Airman Certification Branch, Post Office Box 25082, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73125 and must be accompanied by a check or money 
order for the appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
    (2) In any other form and manner approved by the Administrator 
including a request to Airman Services at http://www.faa.gov, and must 
be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate fee.

[[Page 30281]]

    (c) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed medical 
certificate must be made:
    (1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Aerospace 
Medical Certification Division, P.O. Box 26200, Oklahoma City, OK 
73125, and must be accompanied by a check or money order for the 
appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
    (2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and 
must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate 
fee.
    (d) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge 
test report must be made:
    (1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Airmen 
Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and must 
be accompanied by a check or money order for the appropriate fee 
payable to the FAA; or
    (2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and 
must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate 
fee.
    (e) The letter requesting replacement of a lost or destroyed airman 
certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report must state:
    (1) The name of the person;
    (2) The permanent mailing address (including ZIP code), or if the 
permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the 
person's current residential address;
    (3) The certificate holder's date and place of birth; and
    (4) Any information regarding the--
    (i) Grade, number, and date of issuance of the airman certificate 
and ratings, if appropriate;
    (ii) Class of medical certificate, the place and date of the 
medical exam, name of the Airman Medical Examiner (AME), and the 
circumstances concerning the loss of the original medical certificate, 
as appropriate; and
    (iii) Date the knowledge test was taken, if appropriate.
    (f) A person who has lost an airman certificate, medical 
certificate, or knowledge test report may obtain in a form or manner 
approved by the Administrator, a document conveying temporary authority 
to exercise certificate privileges from the FAA Aeromedical 
Certification Branch or the Airman Certification Branch, as 
appropriate, and the--
    (1) Document may be carried as an airman certificate, medical 
certificate, or knowledge test report, as appropriate, for a period not 
to exceed 60 days pending the person's receiving a duplicate under 
paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, unless the person has been 
notified that the certificate has been suspended or revoked.
    (2) Request for such a document must include the date on which a 
duplicate certificate or knowledge test report was previously 
requested.

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

0
30. The authority citation for part 65 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
31. Revise Sec.  65.59 to read as follows:


Sec.  65.59   Skill requirements.

    An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must pass a 
practical test given by the Administrator, with respect to any one type 
of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. To pass the practical 
test for an aircraft dispatcher certificate, the applicant must 
demonstrate skill in applying the areas of knowledge and topics 
specified in appendix A of this part to preflight and all phases of 
flight, including abnormal and emergency procedures.

0
32. Revise the introductory text of appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 65--Aircraft Dispatcher Courses

Overview

    This appendix sets forth the areas of knowledge necessary to 
perform dispatcher functions. The items listed below indicate the 
minimum set of topics that must be covered in a training course for 
aircraft dispatcher certification. The order of coverage is at the 
discretion of the approved school.
* * * * *

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 
U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).


0
34. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec.  91.109, revise paragraph (c)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  91.109   Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and 
certain flight tests.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who 
possesses at least:
    (i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings 
appropriate to the aircraft being flown; or
    (ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country 
endorsement under Sec.  61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor 
certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the 
requirements of Sec.  61.412 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
35. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec.  91.313, revise paragraphs 
(b), (c), and (d)(3) and (4) and add paragraphs (d)(5) and (h) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  91.313   Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating 
limitations.

* * * * *
    (b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, the following 
operations are considered necessary to accomplish the work activity 
directly associated with a special purpose operation:
    (1) Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a special 
purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated.
    (2) Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent 
flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided 
the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type 
ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate 
special purpose operation.
    (3) Flights conducted to relocate the aircraft for delivery, 
repositioning, or maintenance.
    (c) No person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft 
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. For the purposes 
of this paragraph (c), a special purpose operation involving the 
carriage of persons or material necessary to accomplish that operation, 
such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing (including 
the carrying of required persons or material to the location of that 
operation), an operation for the purpose of providing flight crewmember 
training in a special purpose operation, and an operation conducted 
under the authority provided in paragraph (h) of this section are not 
considered to be the carriage of persons or property for compensation 
or hire.
    (d) * * *
    (3) Performs an essential function in connection with a special 
purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated;
    (4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly 
associated with that special purpose; or

[[Page 30282]]

    (5) Is necessary to accomplish an operation under paragraph (h) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (h)(1) An operator may apply for deviation authority from the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section to conduct operations for 
the following purposes:
    (i) Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a type 
rating provided--
    (A) The pilot being trained and tested holds at least a commercial 
pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for 
the aircraft type;
    (B) The pilot receiving flight training is employed by the operator 
to perform a special purpose operation; and
    (C) The flight training is conducted by the operator who employs 
the pilot to perform a special purpose operation.
    (ii) Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA inspector 
in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide continuing 
oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
    (2) The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of 
deviation authority.
    (3) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at 
any time.
    (4) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority in a 
form and manner acceptable to the Administrator at least 60 days before 
the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must 
contain a complete description of the proposed operation and 
justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that 
provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.

0
36. Revise Sec.  91.531 to read as follows:


Sec.  91.531   Second in command requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person 
may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as 
second in command:
    (1) Any airplane that is type certificated for more than one 
required pilot.
    (2) Any large airplane.
    (3) Any commuter category airplane.
    (b) A person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot 
designated as second in command:
    (1) Any airplane certificated for operation with one pilot.
    (2) A large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane that 
holds a special airworthiness certificate, if:
    (i) The airplane was originally designed with only one pilot 
station; or
    (ii) The airplane was originally designed with more than one pilot 
station, but single pilot operations were permitted by the airplane 
flight manual or were otherwise permitted by a branch of the United 
States Armed Forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State 
to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
    (c) No person may designate a pilot to serve as second in command, 
nor may any pilot serve as second in command, of an airplane required 
under this section to have two pilots unless that pilot meets the 
qualifications for second in command prescribed in Sec.  61.55 of this 
chapter.

0
37. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec.  91.1015, add paragraph (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  91.1015   Management specifications.

* * * * *
    (h) A program manager may obtain approval to provide a temporary 
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical 
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan 
set forth in the program manager's management specifications. A 
document provided by the program manager may be carried as an airman 
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States 
for up to 72 hours.

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 
41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 
Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-
44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 
(49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 
44732 note).


0
39. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec.  121.383, revise paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.383   Airman: Limitations on use of services.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Has in his or her possession while engaged in operations under 
this part--
    (i) Any required appropriate current airman and medical 
certificates; or
    (ii) A temporary document issued in accordance with paragraph (c) 
of this section; and
* * * * *
    (b) Each airman covered by paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall 
present his or her certificates or temporary document for inspection 
upon request of the Administrator.
    (c) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary 
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical 
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan 
set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A 
document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman 
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States 
for up to 72 hours.
* * * * *

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

0
40. The authority citation for part 135 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
41. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec.  135.95 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  135.95   Airmen: Limitations on use of services.

    (a) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as an 
airman unless the person performing those services--
    (1) Holds an appropriate and current airman certificate; and
    (2) Is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which 
the person is to be used.
    (b) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary 
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical 
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan 
set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A 
document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman 
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States 
for up to 72 hours.

0
42. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec.  135.99, add paragraphs (c) 
and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.99   Composition of flight crew.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a 
certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under instrument 
flight rules may receive authorization from the Administrator through 
its operations specifications to establish a second-in-command 
professional development program. As part of that program, a pilot 
employed by the certificate holder may log time as

[[Page 30283]]

second in command in operations conducted under this part and part 91 
of this chapter that do not require a second pilot by type 
certification of the aircraft or the regulation under which the flight 
is being conducted, provided the flight operation is conducted in 
accordance with the certificate holder's operations specifications for 
second-in-command professional development program; and--
    (1) The certificate holder:
    (i) Maintains records for each assigned second in command 
consistent with the requirements in Sec.  135.63;
    (ii) Provides a copy of the records required by Sec.  
135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) to the assigned second in command upon request 
and within a reasonable time; and
    (iii) Establishes and maintains a data collection and analysis 
process that will enable the certificate holder and the FAA to 
determine whether the second-in-command professional development 
program is accomplishing its objectives.
    (2) The aircraft is a multiengine airplane or a single-engine 
turbine-powered airplane. The aircraft must have an independent set of 
controls for a second pilot flightcrew member, which may not include a 
throwover control wheel. The aircraft must also have the following 
equipment and independent instrumentation for a second pilot:
    (i) An airspeed indicator;
    (ii) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure;
    (iii) Gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator;
    (iv) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator combined with an integral 
slip-skid indicator;
    (v) Gyroscopic direction indicator;
    (vi) For IFR operations, a vertical speed indicator;
    (vii) For IFR operations, course guidance for en route navigation 
and instrument approaches; and
    (viii) A microphone, transmit switch, and headphone or speaker.
    (3) The pilot assigned to serve as second in command satisfies the 
following requirements:
    (i) The second in command qualifications in Sec.  135.245;
    (ii) The flight time and duty period limitations and rest 
requirements in subpart F of this part;
    (iii) The crewmember testing requirements for second in command in 
subpart G of this part; and
    (iv) The crewmember training requirements for second in command in 
subpart H of this part.
    (4) The pilot assigned to serve as pilot in command satisfies the 
following requirements:
    (i) Has been fully qualified to serve as a pilot in command for the 
certificate holder for at least the previous 6 calendar months; and
    (ii) Has completed mentoring training, including techniques for 
reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship 
and professionalism within the preceding 36 calendar months.
    (d) The following certificate holders are not eligible to receive 
authorization for a second-in-command professional development program 
under paragraph (c) of this section:
    (1) A certificate holder that uses only one pilot in its 
operations; and
    (2) A certificate holder that has been approved to deviate from the 
requirements in Sec.  135.21(a), Sec.  135.341(a), or Sec.  119.69(a) 
of this chapter.

0
43. In Sec.  135.245, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (c) and 
(d) to read as follows.


Sec.  135.245   Second in command qualifications.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no 
certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as 
second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a 
commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class 
ratings and an instrument rating.
* * * * *
    (c) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person 
serve, as second in command under IFR unless that person meets the 
following instrument experience requirements:
    (1) Use of an airplane or helicopter for maintaining instrument 
experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the 
flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks 
and iterations in-flight in an airplane or helicopter, as appropriate, 
in actual weather conditions, or under simulated instrument conditions 
using a view-limiting device:
    (i) Six instrument approaches;
    (ii) Holding procedures and tasks; and
    (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of 
navigational electronic systems.
    (2) Use of an FSTD for maintaining instrument experience. A person 
may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in 
an approved FSTD, or a combination of aircraft and FSTD, provided:
    (i) The FSTD represents the category of aircraft for the instrument 
rating privileges to be maintained;
    (ii) The person performs the tasks and iterations in simulated 
instrument conditions; and
    (iii) A flight instructor qualified under Sec.  135.338 or a check 
pilot qualified under Sec.  135.337 observes the tasks and iterations 
and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time 
and content of the session.
    (d) A second in command who has failed to meet the instrument 
experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than 
six calendar months must reestablish instrument recency under the 
supervision of a flight instructor qualified under Sec.  135.338 or a 
check pilot qualified under Sec.  135.337. To reestablish instrument 
recency, a second in command must complete at least the following areas 
of operation required for the instrument rating practical test in an 
aircraft or FSTD that represents the category of aircraft for the 
instrument experience requirements to be reestablished:
    (1) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
    (2) Flight by reference to instruments;
    (3) Navigation systems;
    (4) Instrument approach procedures;
    (5) Emergency operations; and
    (6) Postflight procedures.

PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS

0
44. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

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


0
45. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec.  141.5, revise paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  141.5   Requirements for a pilot school certificate.

* * * * *
    (d) Has established a pass rate of 80 percent or higher on the 
first attempt for all:
    (1) Knowledge tests leading to a certificate or rating;
    (2) Practical tests leading to a certificate or rating;
    (3) End-of-course tests for an approved training course specified 
in appendix K of this part; and
    (4) End-of-course tests for special curricula courses approved 
under Sec.  141.57.
* * * * *

0
46. Effective August 27, 2018, in appendix D to part 141, section 4:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii); and
0
b. Amend paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(4)(i) by removing the words 
``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight 
simulator''.

[[Page 30284]]

    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 141--Commercial Pilot Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Ten hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-
powered airplane, or a technically advanced airplane that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  61.129(j) of this chapter, or any combination 
thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the 
rating sought;
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-
powered airplane, or any combination thereof;
* * * * *

Appendix I to Part 141--[Amended]

0
47. In appendix I to part 141, section 4, redesignate the second 
paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44703(a), on June 6, 2018.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-12800 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>