90126 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 23, 25, 27, 29, 61, 91, 

121, 125, and 135 

[Docket No.: FAA–2013–0485; Amdt. Nos. 

1–70, 23–63, 25–144, 27–48, 29–56, 61–139, 

91–345, 121–376, 125–66, and 135–135] 

RIN 2120–AJ94 

Revisions to Operational 

Requirements for the Use of Enhanced 

Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to 

Pilot Compartment View Requirements 

for Vision Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Prior to this final rule, 

persons could only use an Enhanced 

Flight Vision System (EFVS) in lieu of 

natural vision to descend below the 

decision altitude, decision height, or 

minimum descent altitude (DA/DH or 

MDA) down to 100 feet above the 

touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) using 

certain straight-in landing instrument 

approach procedures (IAPs). This final 

rule permits operators to use an EFVS 

in lieu of natural vision to continue 

descending from 100 feet above the 

TDZE to the runway and to land on 

certain straight-in IAPs under 

instrument flight rules (IFR). This final 

rule also revises and relocates the 

regulations that permit operators to use 

an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to 

descend to 100 feet above the TDZE 

using certain straight-in IAPs. 

Additionally, this final rule addresses 

provisions that permit operators who 

conduct EFVS operations under parts 

121, 125, or 135 to use EFVS-equipped 

aircraft to dispatch, release, or takeoff 

under IFR, and revises the regulations 

for those operators to initiate and 

continue an approach, when the 

destination airport weather is below 

authorized visibility minimums for the 

runway of intended landing. This final 

rule establishes pilot training and recent 

flight experience requirements for 

operators who use EFVS in lieu of 

natural vision to descend below the DA/ 

DH or MDA. EFVS-equipped aircraft 

conducting operations to touchdown 

and rollout are required to meet 

additional airworthiness requirements. 

This final rule also revises pilot 

compartment view certification 

requirements for vision systems using a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view. The 

final rule takes advantage of advanced 

vision capabilities, thereby achieving 

the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) goals of increasing 

access, efficiency, and throughput at 

many airports when low visibility is the 

limiting factor. Additionally, it enables 

EFVS operations in reduced visibilities 

on a greater number of approach 

procedure types while maintaining an 

equivalent level of safety. 

DATES: The final rule is effective March 

13, 2017, except for the amendments to 

§§ 61.66 (amendatory instruction no. 

15), 91.175 (amendatory instruction no. 

18), 91.1039 (amendatory instruction 

no. 23), 121.651 (amendatory 

instruction no. 27), 125.325 

(amendatory instruction no. 33), 

125.381 (amendatory instruction no. 

35), and 135.225 (amendatory 

instruction no. 38), which are effective 

March 13, 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: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Terry King, Flight 

Technologies and Procedures Division, 

AFS–400, Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8790; email Terry.King@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. 40103, which vests the 

Administrator with broad authority to 

prescribe regulations to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), 

which requires the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AC—Advisory circular 

ADS–B—Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast 

AFM—Airplane flight manual 

AFMS—Airplane flight manual supplement 

AIM—Aeronautical Information Manual 

ALPA—Airline Pilots Association 

APV—Approach (procedure) with vertical 

guidance 

ASR—Airport surveillance radar 

ATC—Air Traffic Control 

AWO—All weather operations 

AWOH ARC—All Weather Operations 

Harmonization Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee 

CAA—Civil aviation authority 

CVS—Combined Vision System 

DA—Decision altitude 

DH—Decision height 

EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency 

EFVS—Enhanced Flight Vision System 

EVS—Enhanced Vision System 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FAF—Final approach fix 

FFS—Full flight simulator 

FPARC—Flight path angle reference cue 

FPV—Flight path vector 

FSB—Flight Standardization Board 

GAMA—General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association 

GPS—Global positioning system 

HAI—Helicopter Association International 

HGS—Head Up Guidance System 

HMD—Head mounted display 

HUD—Head up display 

IAP—Instrument approach procedure 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

ICAO HESC—International Civil Aviation 

Organization HUD, EVS, SVS, and CVS 

Subgroup 

IFR—Instrument flight rules 

ILS—Instrument landing system 

IMC—Instrument meteorological conditions 

IR—Infrared 

LED—Light emitting diode 

LIDAR—Laser imaging detection and ranging 

LOA—Letter of authorization 

LODA—Letter of deviation authority 

LPV—Localizer performance with vertical 

guidance 

MASPS—Minimum aviation system 

performance standards 

MDA—Minimum descent altitude 

MSpec—Management specifications 

NextGen—Next Generation Air 

Transportation System 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NVG—Night vision goggle 

OEM—Original equipment manufacturer 

OpSpec—Operations specifications 

PAR—Precision approach radar 

PCG—Pilot/Controller Glossary 

PIC—Pilot in Command 

RNAV—Area navigation 

RNP—Required navigation performance 

RVR—Runway visual range 

SNPRM—Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

TERPS—Terminal instrument procedures 

TDZE—Touchdown Zone Elevation 

VFR—Visual flight rules 

VNAV—Vertical navigation 

WAAS—Wide area augmentation system 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

B. Related Actions 

C. Summary of the NPRM 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90127 

D. General Overview of Comments 

III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public 

Comments 

A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and Add 

a Definition for EFVS Operation (§ 1.1) 

B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in Part 

91 in a New Section (§ 91.176) 

C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility 

and Visual Reference Requirements for 

EFVS Operations to Touchdown and 

Rollout (§ 91.176(a)) 

1. Equipment Requirements 

a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors 

b. Head Up Presentation Requirement for 

EFVS Operations 

c. EFVS Terminology 

d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for 

Foreign-Registered Aircraft 

e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display 

f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue 

(FPARC) 

g. Requirement to Display Height Above 

Ground Level 

h. Requirement to Display Flare Prompt or 

Flare Guidance 

i. Pilot Monitoring Display 

j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to 

Rotorcraft Operations 

k. Requirement to Obtain a Certificate of 

Waiver When Conducting Certain EFVS 

Operations 

2. Operating Requirements 

a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS 

Operations 

b. Touchdown Zone 

c. Definition of ‘‘EFVS Operation’’ and 

Underlying Operational Concepts 

d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and EFVS 

Operations 

e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 Operators 

To Conduct EFVS Operations to 

Touchdown and Rollout 

f. International EFVS Operations 

g. EFVS Authorizations 

h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations 

i. Combined Vision Systems 

j. Use of the Term ‘‘EFVS’’ in Rule 

Language 

k. Approach Plates and EFVS Operations 

l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts 

m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS 

Operating Requirements 

n. Opposing Comments on the FAA’s 

Proposal 

3. Visibility and Visual Reference 

Requirements 

a. Visual References Below 100 Feet Above 

the TDZE During EFVS Operations to 

Touchdown and Rollout 

b. Enhanced Flight Visibility Requirement 

During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet 

Above the TDZE 

c. Visual References for Rollout 

d. Controlling Runway Visual Range (RVR) 

Values 

e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative 

Visual Aids 

f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility 

Requirements of §§ 91.155 and 91.157 

During Rotorcraft Operations 

D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS 

Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE 

(§ 91.176(b)) 

1. Methods for Conducting Approaches 

During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet 

Above the TDZE 

E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, and 

Refresher Training Requirements for 

Persons Conducting EFVS Operations 

(§ 61.66) 

1. Training Requirements for Persons 

Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(a), 

(b) and (c)) 

a. Separate Training for EFVS Operations 

to 100 Feet Above the TDZE and EFVS 

Operations to Touchdown and Rollout 

b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training 

c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an 

EFVS in Flight Operations 

d. Revisions To Clarify Training 

Requirements in § 61.66(a), (b) and (c) 

2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS 

Refresher Training for Persons 

Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(d) 

and (e)) 

3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience 

4. Persons Authorized to Conduct EFVS 

Refresher Training 

5. Revisions to § 61.57 

6. Military Pilots and Former Military 

Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces 

(§ 61.66(f)) 

7. Use of Full Flight Simulators (§ 61.66(g)) 

8. Exceptions (§ 61.66(h)) 

a. Manipulating the Controls 

(§ 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) 

b. Exception to Ground and Flight Training 

(§ 61.66(h)(2)) 

c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience 

Requirements (§ 61.66(h)(3)) 

d. Grandfather Clause (§ 61.66(h)(4)) 

F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a 

Flight Using EFVS-Equipped Aircraft 

When the Reported or Forecast Visibility 

at the Destination Airport is Below 

Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.613, 

125.361, 135.219) and Initiating or 

Continuing an Approach Using EFVSEquipped Aircraft When the Destination 

Airport Visibility is Below Authorized 

Minimums (§§ 121.651, 125.325, 

125.381, 135.225) 

G. Revisions to Category II and III General 

Operating Rules to Permit the Use of an 

EFVS (§ 91.189) 

H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and 

Airworthiness Standards for Vision 

Systems With Transparent Displays 

Located in the Pilot’s Outside Field of 

View (§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 

29.773) 

1. Vision Systems and Display Methods 

Addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, 

and 29.773 

2. Pilot’s Outside View—Terminology and 

Compensation for Interference 

3. Undistorted View Requirements 

4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and 

Head Mounted Display (HMD) 

Considerations 

5. Requirement To Provide a Means of 

Immediate Deactivation and Reactivation 

of Vision System Imagery 

6. Vision Systems and Requirements 

Applicable to Duties and Maneuvers 

7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, SVS 

and CVS Installations 

8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation and 

Bird Strike Requirements 

I. Related and Conforming Amendments 

(§§ 91.175, 91.905, and 135.225) 

J. Implementation 

K. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. Minimum Crew Requirements 

2. Failure Modes 

3. EFVS Equipment and Operational 

Considerations 

4. Applicability of Previously Collected 

Data or Data Submitted on the Basis of 

Similarity 

5. Public Aircraft Operations 

6. Qualification Requirements for Persons 

Conducting EFVS Operations in the 

United States 

7. Economic Comments 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132. Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. How to Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This final rule modifies the 

requirements for EFVS operations. The 

FAA is revising the definition of an 

EFVS in § 1.1 to describe the 

components of an EFVS and to specify 

that an EFVS is an ‘‘installed aircraft 

system’’ rather than an ‘‘installed 

airborne system’’ because some EFVS 

operations may be conducted on the 

surface as well as airborne. The FAA is 

also adding a new term, ‘‘EFVS 

operation,’’ to § 1.1. 

The FAA is creating new § 91.176, 

which contains the operating rules for 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout and for EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE. The FAA is 

relocating to § 91.176(b) the regulations 

for EFVS operations to 100 feet above 

the TDZE, which were previously 

located in § 91.175(l) and (m), and is 

revising and restructuring these 

regulations. Prior to this final rule, 

persons could only use EFVS in lieu of 

natural vision to descend below DA/DH 

or MDA down to 100 feet above the 

TDZE using certain straight-in landing 

IAPs. Section 91.176(a) now expands 

the existing operational capability by 

permitting persons to use an EFVS in 

lieu of natural vision to continue 

descending below 100 feet above the 

TDZE to landing and rollout. Paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of § 91.176 are organized into 

three main areas—equipment 

requirements, operating requirements, 

and visibility and visual reference 

requirements. The equipment, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90128 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1As further discussed in section III.E of this 

preamble, the FAA has reorganized the training, 

recent flight experience, and proficiency 

requirements that were proposed in §§ 61.31 and 

61.57 and consolidated them in new § 61.66. 

2Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers 

and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 

2013). 

3Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip Kelsey 

from Mark W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Regulations (September 20, 2013). 

operating, and visibility requirements in 

paragraph (a) for conducting an EFVS 

operation to touchdown and rollout are 

different from the requirements in 

paragraph (b) for conducting an EFVS 

operation to 100 feet above the TDZE. In 

addition, persons are permitted to use 

two new visual references for descent 

below 100 feet above the TDZE for EFVS 

operations conducted under both 

§ 91.176(a) and (b). The FAA is also 

amending the operating rules for 

Category II and Category III operations 

in § 91.189 to permit the use of EFVS in 

lieu of natural vision during the 

performance of those operations. 

This final rule also establishes 

training and recent flight experience 

requirements for persons conducting 

EFVS operations.1 The ground and 

flight training requirements in 

§ 61.66(a), (b) and (c) apply to pilots 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE as well as to pilots 

conducting EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. A pilot must 

comply with the training provisions of 

part 61 in addition to the training 

provisions of the part under which the 

operation is conducted, which may 

require additional ground and flight 

training appropriate to the particular 

assignment of the pilot flightcrew 

member. Recent flight experience and 

refresher training requirements for 

persons conducting EFVS operations are 

located in § 61.66(d) and (e). 

Additionally, § 61.66(f) contains the 

requirements applicable to military and 

former military pilots in the U.S. Armed 

Forces who wish to conduct EFVS 

operations under § 91.176. 

The FAA is revising §§ 121.651, 

125.325, 125.381, and 135.225 to permit 

operators of EFVS-equipped aircraft to 

initiate or continue an approach when 

the destination airport visibility is 

below authorized minimums. The FAA 

is also revising § 91.1039(e) to permit 

part 91 subpart K operators to conduct 

takeoff operations using EFVS when the 

visibility is less than 600 feet in 

accordance with the certificate holders’ 

Management Specifications (MSpec) for 

EFVS operations, and to clarify that an 

EFVS operation is permitted when the 

landing weather minimums are less 

than those prescribed by the authority 

having jurisdiction over the airport. 

Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) through (xi) 

requires operators conducting EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

under part 91, 121, 125 (including part 

125 Letter of Deviation Authority 

(LODA) holders), 129, or 135 to obtain 

FAA authorization to conduct those 

operations. Section 91.176(b)(2)(vii) 

through (ix) requires operators 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE under part 91 subpart 

K, 121, 125 (including part 125 LODA 

holders), or 135 to obtain FAA 

authorization to conduct those 

operations. Under § 91.176(b)(2), part 91 

operators, other than those operating 

under part 91 subpart K, are not 

required to obtain FAA authorization to 

conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. 

The FAA now revises the pilot 

compartment view rules contained in 

§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 to 

establish airworthiness standards for 

vision systems with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view, such as a head up 

display, head mounted display, or other 

equivalent display. This final rule 

eliminates the current need to issue 

special conditions for vision system 

video on a head up display. The FAA 

notes that its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), ‘‘Revision of 

Airworthiness Standards for Normal, 

Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter 

Category Airplanes,’’ 81 FR 13452 (Mar. 

14, 2016), contains proposals that 

significantly restructure part 23. 

Because the part 23 NPRM is pending, 

references to part 23 in this final rule 

refer to existing part 23, and revisions 

to the pilot compartment view rules 

contained in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, 

and 29.773 include the general 

requirements that were previously 

contained in special conditions. 

Revising § 23.773 establishes a 

requirement that could later be used as 

a means of compliance if the proposed 

part 23 rule becomes final. 

This final rule also makes related and 

conforming amendments to §§ 91.175, 

91.905 and 135.225. The FAA is 

updating regulatory cross references and 

terms in § 91.175 to coincide with this 

final rule and with another FAA final 

rule, which was published after the 

NPRM.2 The FAA is amending § 91.905 

to include § 91.176 as a regulation 

subject to waiver. Additionally, the FAA 

is revising § 135.225 to correct a drafting 

error that arose from another final rule, 

‘‘Enhanced Flight Vision Systems,’’ 69 

FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004), and later 

identified in an FAA legal interpretation 

dated September 20, 2013.3

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The FAA created regulations in 2004, 

§ 91.175(l) and (m), which permitted 

persons to use an EFVS in lieu of 

natural vision to descend an aircraft 

below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. These regulations, 

however, did not provide operators with 

the ability to fully utilize the benefits of 

EFVS technology. The FAA believes it 

can better leverage EFVS capabilities by 

issuing performance-based requirements 

for current and future enhanced flight 

vision systems, which should increase 

access, efficiency, and throughput at 

many airports when low visibility is a 

factor. 

Under the 2004 EFVS regulations, the 

pilot of an aircraft operating under part 

121, 125, or 135 could not begin an 

approach or continue an approach past 

the final approach fix (FAF), or, where 

a FAF was not used, begin the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure, when the weather 

at the destination airport was reported 

to be below authorized minimums. 

These restrictions prevented persons 

conducting operations under parts 121, 

125, or 135 from using EFVS for 

maximum operational benefit. 

Under § 91.175(l), persons could use 

the enhanced flight visibility provided 

by an EFVS for operational benefit only 

in that portion of the visual segment of 

an approach that extended from DA/DH 

or MDA down to 100 feet above the 

TDZE. While that provided significant 

benefits, the requirement to transition to 

natural vision at 100 feet above the 

TDZE prevented operators from 

realizing the benefits of permitting 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout. 

Furthermore, the 2004 EFVS 

regulations did not specify any training, 

recent flight experience, or proficiency 

requirements in part 61 for persons 

conducting EFVS operations. Since the 

2004 final rule was enacted, the number 

of EFVS operations has significantly 

increased. The FAA believes this final 

rule will further increase the number of 

operators conducting EFVS operations 

to lower altitudes in low visibility 

conditions. Therefore, training, recent 

flight experience, and refresher training 

requirements in part 61 are needed to 

ensure an appropriate level of safety is 

maintained. 

Additionally, the 2004 EFVS 

regulations did not permit persons to 

use EFVS for operational benefit during 

Category II and Category III operations. 

The FAA believes an EFVS can provide 

operational and safety benefits during 

Category II and Category III operations, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90129 

especially as more advanced imaging 

sensor capabilities are developed, which 

function more effectively in lower 

visibility conditions. 

Finally, prior to this final rule, there 

were no airworthiness standards that 

specifically addressed vision systems, 

such as EFVS. Accordingly, the FAA 

used special conditions to certificate 

aircraft with vision systems, which 

imposed significant delays on the 

certification process. 

B. Related Actions 

The FAA revised Advisory Circular 

(AC) 90–106, Enhanced Flight Vision 

Systems, and AC 20–167, Airworthiness 

Approval of Enhanced Vision System, 

Synthetic Vision System, Combined 

Vision System, and Enhanced Flight 

Vision System Equipment to incorporate 

the provisions of this final rule. AC 90– 

106A contains guidance for the 

operational approval of EFVS, and AC 

20–167A specifies a means of 

compliance that may be used to obtain 

airworthiness approval for EFVS. 

C. Summary of the NPRM 

On June 11, 2013, the FAA published 

an NPRM titled ‘‘Revisions to 

Operational Requirements for the Use of 

Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) 

and to Pilot Compartment View 

Requirements for Vision Systems,’’ 78 

FR 34935. The comment period was 

initially scheduled to close on 

September 9, 2013. Dassault Aviation 

submitted a request to extend the NPRM 

comment period to October 15, 2013, 

stating that it needed additional time to 

evaluate and prepare comments for the 

NPRM, draft AC 90–106A, and draft AC 

20–167A, all of which are directly 

related. On September 6, 2013, the FAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the NPRM comment 

period to October 15, 2013, to coincide 

with the close of comment period for 

draft AC 90–106A and draft AC 20– 

167A. ‘‘Revisions to Operational 

Requirements for the Use of Enhanced 

Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to 

Pilot Compartment View Requirements 

for Vision Systems; Extension of 

Comment Period,’’ 78 FR 54790. 

The regulatory evaluation associated 

with the NPRM was not posted to the 

docket prior to the close of the comment 

period. Therefore, to ensure that the 

public had the opportunity to provide 

comments specifically on the regulatory 

evaluation posted in the docket, the 

FAA published a notice in the Federal 

Register on August 20, 2015, reopening 

the comment period for 30 days to allow 

for comments on the regulatory 

evaluation only. ‘‘Revisions to 

Operational Requirements for the Use of 

Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) 

and to Pilot Compartment View 

Requirements for Vision Systems; 

Reopening of Comment Period,’’ 80 FR 

50587. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to— 

• More fully define the components 

of an EFVS and provide a definition of 

the term ‘‘EFVS operation’’ in § 1.1. 

• Establish airworthiness standards 

for vision systems with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view in §§ 23.773, 

25.773, 27.773, and 29.773. 

• Require training and an 

endorsement for EFVS operations in 

§ 61.31(l). 

• Require recent flight experience or 

a proficiency check for a person 

conducting an EFVS operation or acting 

as pilot in command (PIC) during an 

EFVS operation in § 61.57(i). 

• Re-designate § 91.175(l) and (m) as 

§ 91.176(b). The FAA proposed to place 

all EFVS regulations contained in part 

91, except those pertaining to Category 

II and Category III operations, in a single 

new section for organizational and 

regulatory clarity. 

• Permit EFVS to be used in lieu of 

natural vision to continue descending 

below 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone provided certain equipment, 

operating, visibility, and visual 

reference requirements were met. 

• Permit an EFVS to be used to 

identify the visual references required to 

continue an approach below the 

authorized DA/DH on Category II and 

Category III approaches conducted 

under § 91.189 that provide and require 

the use of a DA/DH. 

• Add § 91.176 to the list of rules 

subject to waiver in § 91.905. 

• Amend §§ 121.613 and 121.615 to 

permit an EFVS-equipped aircraft to be 

dispatched or released when the 

visibility was forecast or reported to be 

below authorized minimums for a 

destination airport. 

• Permit a pilot conducting an EFVS 

operation in accordance with § 121.651 

to continue an approach past the FAF, 

or begin the final approach segment of 

an instrument approach procedure, 

when the weather was reported to be 

below authorized visibility minimums. 

Proposed § 121.651 also would have 

permitted EFVS-equipped part 121 

operators to conduct EFVS operations in 

accordance with § 91.176 and their 

operations specifications issued for 

EFVS operations. 

• Permit flight release under 

§§ 125.361 and 125.363 for EFVSequipped aircraft when weather reports 

or forecasts indicated that arrival 

weather conditions at the destination 

airport would be below authorized 

minimums. 

• Permit the pilot of an EFVSequipped aircraft to execute an 

instrument approach procedure when 

the weather is reported below 

authorized visibility minimums under 

§§ 125.325 and 125.381. Proposed 

§ 125.381 also would have permitted 

EFVS-equipped part 125 operators to 

conduct EFVS operations in accordance 

with § 91.176 and their operations 

specifications. 

• Permit flights in EFVS-equipped 

aircraft to be initiated under § 135.219 

when weather reports or forecasts 

indicated that arrival weather 

conditions at the destination airport 

would be below authorized minimums. 

• Permit the pilot of an EFVSequipped aircraft to initiate an 

instrument approach procedure under 

§ 135.225 when the reported visibility 

was below the authorized visibility 

minimums for the approach. Proposed 

§ 135.225 also would have permitted 

EFVS-equipped part 135 operators to 

conduct EFVS operations in accordance 

with § 91.176 and their operations 

specifications issued for EFVS 

operations. 

• Make additional related and 

conforming amendments. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

performance-based requirements not 

limited to a specific sensor technology. 

The FAA intended to accommodate 

future developments in real-time sensor 

technologies and maximize the benefits 

of advanced flight deck systems. The 

final rule is consistent with the agency’s 

Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) goals of increasing 

access and throughput during low 

visibility operations. 

The operating requirements of the 

proposal only addressed enhanced flight 

vision systems that utilize a real-time 

image of the external scene topography. 

The proposed operating requirements 

did not address synthetic vision, which 

uses a computer-generated image of the 

external scene topography from the 

perspective of the flight deck, derived 

from aircraft attitude, a high precision 

navigation solution, and a database of 

terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural 

features. The airworthiness standards 

proposed in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, 

and 29.773, however, addressed 

synthetic vision systems (SVS) with a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view because 

the airworthiness standards apply to 

more than enhanced flight vision 

systems; they apply to all transparent 

display surfaces located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90130 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

4Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires an EFVS to 

present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft flight 

information, and flight symbology on a head up 

display, or an equivalent display, so that they are 

clearly visible to the pilot flying in his or her 

normal position with the line of vision looking 

forward along the flight path. 

5 14 CFR 11.15 

Finally, the NPRM did not address the 

use of EFVS for takeoff because the FAA 

can authorize these operations through 

existing processes. Section 91.175(f) 

already provides a means for persons 

conducting operations under parts 121, 

125, 129, or 135 to obtain authorization 

for lower than standard takeoff 

minimums, which could include the use 

of EFVS. Additionally, the regulations 

do not prescribe civil airport takeoff 

minimums for part 91 operators (other 

than part 91subpart K operators) as 

discussed in section III.C.2.h of this 

preamble. 

D. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 34 

commenters. The commenters consisted 

of 16 original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs), five industry associations, 

several operators, an aircraft 

management service, an aerospace 

consulting company, a standards 

organization, and several individuals. 

All but one commenter generally 

supported the proposed changes. Three 

commenters supported the proposal 

with no changes, and the remaining 30 

commenters generally supported the 

proposal with 171 comments containing 

questions, concerns, and suggested 

changes. 

A number of commenters stated that 

they support the FAA’s intent to better 

leverage EFVS capabilities by providing 

a performance-based regulation for 

existing and evolving EFVS technology. 

One commenter stated that future 

improvements in EFVS sensor 

technologies may enable additional 

performance-based operations under the 

FAA’s proposal, and others commented 

that they believe EFVS technology has 

tremendous potential for increasing 

safety and enhancing airspace 

utilization within the NAS while 

creating economic benefits to the public. 

Several industry associations said they 

strongly support the FAA creating and 

supporting a flexible regulatory 

structure that encourages innovation 

and improves operational efficiencies. 

Several OEMs specifically supported the 

FAA’s proposal to eliminate the need to 

issue special conditions by revising the 

pilot compartment view certification 

requirements in the airworthiness 

standards of parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. 

Specific changes recommended by the 

commenters as well as the concerns 

expressed by one individual who 

opposed the FAA’s proposal are 

discussed in detail in ‘‘Section III. 

Discussion of Final Rule and Public 

Comments.’’ 

III. Discussion of Final Rule and Public 

Comments 

A. Revise the Definition for EFVS and 

Add a Definition for EFVS Operation 

(§ 1.1) 

Section 1.1 defines enhanced flight 

vision system (EFVS) to mean ‘‘an 

installed aircraft system which uses an 

electronic means to provide a display of 

the forward external scene topography 

(the natural or manmade features of a 

place or region especially in a way to 

show their relative positions and 

elevation) through the use of imaging 

sensors, such as forward-looking 

infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, 

millimeter wave radar, or low-light level 

image intensification. An EFVS includes 

the display element, sensors, computers 

and power supplies, indications, and 

controls.’’ This definition differs from 

what was proposed in the NPRM, 

because the FAA is not including the 

equipment requirements in the 

definition, which proposed ‘‘The EFVS 

sensor imagery and required aircraft 

flight information and flight symbology 

are displayed on a head up display, or 

an equivalent display, so that they are 

clearly visible to the pilot flying in his 

or her normal position with the line of 

vision looking forward along the flight 

path.’’ The proposed definition would 

have inappropriately embedded 

requirements. 

The definition of EFVS also differs 

from what was proposed in the NPRM 

because the FAA is not using the word 

‘‘applicable’’ to describe the natural or 

manmade features that an EFVS may 

display. Upon further reflection, the 

FAA has decided that the word 

‘‘applicable’’ could generate confusion 

because an EFVS cannot differentiate 

between applicable and non-applicable 

items. An EFVS simply senses and 

displays items. The FAA is, however, 

adopting the proposed relocation to 

§ 1.1 of the descriptive material from 

§ 91.175(m)(3). 

Garmin International suggested that 

the FAA revise the definition of EFVS 

by replacing ‘‘EFVS sensor imagery’’ 

with ‘‘EFVS image’’ or ‘‘EFVS sensor 

imagery and aircraft flight symbology.’’ 

In other words, Garmin was concerned 

that the term ‘‘sensor imagery,’’ as used 

in the definition, might be 

misinterpreted to mean only the image 

from the imaging sensor without 

encompassing the remaining EFVS 

elements. Garmin also believed its 

suggested revision would make the 

proposed definition in § 1.1 more 

consistent with proposed 

§§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B), 91.176(a)(1)(i)(E), 

and 91.176(a)(1)(ii). 

The FAA is not adopting the proposed 

equipment requirements in the 

definition of EFVS, because 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) already contains 

these requirements.4 This decision is 

not intended to be a substantive change 

as the FAA is relying on the equipment 

requirements in § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) to 

replace the requirements it had 

proposed in the definition of EFVS. 

Definitions only describe what 

something is, not what it must do. 

Accordingly, definitions should not 

contain substantive regulatory 

provisions, such as regulatory 

requirements. If the FAA were to adopt 

requirements in the definition of EFVS, 

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.5 Nor would the FAA be able 

to grant a waiver from those 

requirements, if they were in the 

definition, because § 91.903 permits the 

FAA to grant a waiver from any rule 

listed in § 91.905 and a definition is not 

a rule. Therefore, § 1.1 defines the EFVS 

to which § 91.176 applies and § 91.176 

contains the regulatory requirements. 

This change obviates addressing 

Garmin’s concern because the definition 

no longer contains the terminology 

Garmin sought to revise. However, as a 

result of Garmin’s comment, the FAA 

discovered that § 91.176(a) and (b), as 

proposed, did not contain specific 

references to ‘‘aircraft flight 

information,’’ as had been proposed in 

the definition of EFVS in § 1.1. 

Accordingly, the FAA is revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 91.176 to 

include ‘‘aircraft flight information’’ 

where appropriate. 

Section 1.1 defines an ‘‘EFVS 

operation’’ as an operation in which 

visibility conditions require an EFVS to 

be used in lieu of natural vision to 

perform an approach or landing, 

determine enhanced flight visibility, 

identify required visual references, or 

conduct the rollout. This definition 

differs slightly from the NPRM, where 

the FAA proposed to define ‘‘EFVS 

operation’’ as an operation in which an 

EFVS is required to be used to perform 

such tasks. This change clarifies that not 

all operations in which a pilot uses an 

EFVS constitute an EFVS operation 

under the definition. Rather, an EFVS 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90131 

6Section 91.175(m) previously contained this 

requirement. 

7Section 91.176(b)(1)(ii) requires the EFVS to 

meet the requirements of § 91.176(a)(1)(i) with the 

exception of the flare prompt, flare guidance, and 

height above ground level requirements. 

8Honeywell asserted that § 91.176(a) and (b) 

describe two different operations that do not 

necessarily require the same equipment. Honeywell 

explained that operators may currently perform 

Category II ILS approaches down to 100 feet above 

the TDZE using head down primary displays. 

Honeywell’s comments are out of scope as the FAA 

did not propose to change the existing head-up 

display, or equivalent display, requirements. 

Furthermore, the FAA notes that EFVS operations 

to 100 feet above the TDZE and Category II ILS 

approaches down to 100 feet above the TDZE are 

two distinct operations. 

operation is an operation that a pilot 

would not be permitted to perform 

without the use of an EFVS. For 

example, a person may not descend 

below the DA/DH using natural vision 

if the flight visibility using natural 

vision is less than what is required by 

the instrument approach procedure 

being flown. That person may, however, 

use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to 

descend below the DA/DH if the 

enhanced flight visibility is not less 

than what is required by the instrument 

approach procedure. 

Boeing commented that the FAA 

stated in the preamble that while an 

EFVS can provide situation awareness 

in any phase of flight, such use would 

not constitute an EFVS operation unless 

an EFVS was required in lieu of natural 

vision to perform any visual task 

associated with approach, landing, and 

rollout. Boeing recommended that the 

FAA consider not just approach, 

landing, and rollout as part of an EFVS 

operation but approach, landing, and/or 

rollout to clarify that EFVS might be 

used for one segment of the terminal 

operation, but not other segments. 

The FAA agrees but Boeing’s concern 

is addressed in the definition of ‘‘EFVS 

operation’’ in § 1.1. 

B. Consolidate EFVS Requirements in 

Part 91 in a New Section (§ 91.176) 

The FAA created a new section, 

§ 91.176, for the EFVS regulations to 

ensure organizational and regulatory 

clarity. As the FAA originally proposed 

in the NPRM, § 91.176(a) contains the 

requirements for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout, and § 91.176(b) 

contains the requirements, which were 

previously located in § 91.175(l) and 

(m), for EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. Boeing recommended 

that the FAA move the regulations for 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE from § 91.176(b) to § 91.176(a), 

and move the regulations for EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

from § 91.176(a) to § 91.176(b). Boeing 

believed this format would facilitate 

reading and understanding the changes, 

because the existing EFVS rules, which 

were previously located in § 91.175(l) 

and (m), would be placed first. 

The FAA disagrees with Boeing and is 

retaining the format as originally 

proposed. The FAA placed the new 

rules for EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout in § 91.176(a) because it 

believes that operators will eventually 

conduct the majority of EFVS operations 

to touchdown and rollout. Placing these 

regulations in § 91.176(a) facilitates 

quick reference. The FAA placed the 

rules for EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE, which were previously 

located in § 91.175(l) and (m), in 

§ 91.176(b) because it expects operators 

will use these rules less frequently in 

the future. Furthermore, the regulations 

for EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout are more extensive than the 

regulations for EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE. By placing the 

more extensive rules in § 91.176(a), the 

FAA is able to cross reference the 

equipment requirements of 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A)–(a)(1)(i)(F) in 

§ 91.176(b)(1)(ii), thereby eliminating 

significant redundancy. 

C. Equipment, Operating, and Visibility 

and Visual Reference Requirements for 

EFVS Operations to Touchdown and 

Rollout (§ 91.176(a)) 

1. Equipment Requirements 

a. Real-Time Imaging Sensors 

Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(A) requires, as 

originally proposed in the NPRM, that 

an EFVS have an electronic means to 

provide a display of the forward 

external scene topography, which 

consists of the applicable natural or 

manmade features of a place or region, 

especially in a way to show their 

relative positions and elevation, through 

the use of imaging sensors, such as 

forward-looking infrared, millimeter 

wave radiometry, millimeter wave 

radar, or low-light level image 

intensification. Airbus and Thales 

commented on the list of imaging 

sensors. Airbus suggested that the FAA 

use an ellipsis at the end of the list to 

emphasize that it is not exhaustive, and 

Thales proposed that the FAA add laser 

imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) 

to the list. 

The FAA finds that the use of the 

term ‘‘such as’’ after the reference to 

imaging sensors indicates the list of 

examples is non-exhaustive. However, 

based on the concerns raised by the 

commenters, the FAA has revised the 

definition to clarify that imaging sensors 

includes but is not limited to the list of 

examples in §§ 1.1 and 

91.176(a)(1)(i)(A). 

b. Head Up Presentation Requirement 

for EFVS Operations 

As originally proposed, 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires that an 

EFVS present the sensor imagery, 

aircraft flight information, and flight 

symbology on a head up display, or an 

equivalent display, so that the imagery, 

information and symbology are clearly 

visible to the pilot flying in his or her 

normal position with the line of vision 

looking forward along the flight path.6

This requirement applies to both EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

and EFVS operations to 100 feet above 

the TDZE.7

Several commenters expressed 

concerns about the requirement to 

present sensor imagery, aircraft flight 

information, and flight symbology on a 

head up display (HUD). Honeywell 

commented that the FAA is 

unnecessarily restricting the goals of 

increased access, efficiency, and 

throughput in low visibility conditions 

by this requirement. Honeywell agreed 

that there is value in requiring EFVS 

information to be displayed on a HUD 

for EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout but believes EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE should allow 

for head down presentations.8 FedEx 

Express, Gulfstream Aerospace 

Corporation (Gulfstream), Honeywell, 

and General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) commented that 

the FAA should not limit an equivalent 

display to a head up presentation. 

Instead, it should consider all vision 

systems containing the required sensor 

imagery and flight symbology that meet 

an acceptable level of performance and 

safety for the intended operation. One 

commenter suggested that an acceptable 

location for an EFVS display, or an 

equivalent display, was in the normal 

line-of-sight established at 15 degrees 

below the horizontal plane, +/¥15 

degrees for the vertical field-of-view, or 

+40 degrees up and -20 degrees down as 

a maximum deviation. 

Commenters were also concerned that 

the head up presentation requirement 

might have limiting effects on future 

technology. Honeywell contended that 

the FAA’s HUD requirement for EFVS 

does not allow for new technologies and 

new ways of presenting information that 

could be developed in the future. It also 

believed that alternative means for 

displaying the sensor imagery and flight 

information have already been shown to 

satisfy the necessary performance 

criteria. Additionally, several 

commenters stated that the FAA is 

unnecessarily limiting future aircraft or 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90132 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

9The FAA notes that commenters raised these 

issues in 2004. The FAA disagreed that it should 

permit the presentation of EFVS information on 

head down displays, and noted that EFVS 

information must be presented on a head up 

display, or an equivalent display, so that the 

imagery, aircraft flight information, and flight 

symbology are clearly visible to the pilot flying in 

his or her normal position with the line of vision 

looking forward along the flight path. Please see the 

previous disposition of comments in ‘‘Enhanced 

Flight Vision Systems,’’ 69 FR 1620 (Jan. 9, 2004). 

10See AC No. 20–167A, Airworthiness Approval 

of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision 

System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced 

Flight Vision System Equipment (providing 

guidance for obtaining airworthiness approval for 

enhanced and synthetic vision systems in aircraft). 

11The disposition of Thales’ comment in the next 

section of the preamble explains why the FAA is 

using the phrase ‘‘meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements.’’ 

12The FAA restructured the requirements in 

proposed § 91.176(b)(1)(i)–(iii) to be more 

consistent with § 91.176(a)(1)(i) for organizational 

clarity. 

13The FAA believes that Thales is referring to 

ICAO Annex 6, Part I, 6.23.2 and ICAO Annex 6, 

Part II, 2.4.15.2, which are discussed in the 

following paragraph. The FAA notes that ICAO 

adopted these standards after the NPRM was 

published on June 11, 2013. 

14 ICAO adopted Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 

and Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2 after the 

FAA issued the NPRM on June 11, 2013, 

15The FAA could have required this prior to the 

adoption of Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 and 

Annex 6, Part II, Standard 2.4.15.2, which explains 

why § 91.175(l)(7) previously required a foreignregistered aircraft to have an EFVS that complies 

with all of the EFVS requirements of 14 CFR and 

why the FAA proposed to retain the requirement in 

the NPRM. 

systems that may be capable of meeting 

performance-based criteria appropriate 

for EFVS operations, such as vision 

systems that use head down displays, 

high-speed aircraft that have reduced or 

limited front window designs, or 

unmanned aerial systems (UASs). 

GAMA recommended that the FAA 

create a performance-based framework 

rather than making EFVS dependent 

only on HUD technology. It believes this 

would not only permit different 

technology solutions but would allow 

manufacturers to design an EFVS that 

enables operations to different 

performance minima. 

The FAA is not adopting these 

recommendations because they are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA did not propose to change the 

existing head-up display, or equivalent 

display, requirements under 

§ 91.175(m).9 Rather, the FAA proposed 

to expand EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout using the 

existing operational construct in 

§ 91.175(l) and (m). More specifically, 

the FAA proposed to apply all the 

equipment requirements of the EFVS 

regulations found in § 91.175(m), 

including the head-up presentation 

requirement, to EFVS operations 

conducted to touchdown and rollout. As 

a result, others have not had an 

opportunity to comment on the use of 

HDDs to conduct EFVS operations. 

While the FAA is not issuing an SNPRM 

at this time to propose the use of HDDs 

under § 91.176, the FAA notes that it 

may grant waivers to OEMs from the 

applicable sections of § 91.176 to enable 

OEMs to use HDDs during EFVS 

operations for the purpose of research 

and development. After the FAA has 

had sufficient time to gather information 

and analyze the safety of HDDs used to 

conduct EFVS operations in the national 

airspace system, the FAA may 

contemplate future rulemaking. 

c. EFVS Terminology 

A couple of commenters sought 

clarification and alignment of the EFVS 

terminology used in § 91.176. 

Under § 91.176(a)(1)(i), a U.S.- 

registered aircraft must have an operable 

EFVS that meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements.10 The 

terminology in this requirement differs 

slightly from the NPRM, which would 

have required an operable EFVS that 

had an FAA type design approval 

certified for EFVS operations. Dassault 

Aviation requested that the FAA clarify 

the terms ‘‘approved EFVS,’’ ‘‘certified 

EFVS,’’ and ‘‘EFVS-equipped operator.’’ 

The FAA finds it unnecessary to clarify 

the terms ‘‘approved EFVS’’ and ‘‘EFVSequipped operator’’ because it did not 

specifically use these terms in the 

proposed regulations. Nor is the FAA 

using these terms in this final rule. The 

FAA also finds it unnecessary to clarify 

the term ‘‘certified EFVS’’ because it has 

deleted the word ‘‘certified’’ from 

proposed § 91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(3)(i), and 

(b)(3)(i). Instead, the FAA is using the 

phrase ‘‘meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements.’’ 11

d. EFVS Equipment Requirements for 

Foreign-Registered Aircraft 

Under § 91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), 

an aircraft must be equipped with an 

operable EFVS that meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements. The 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(i) differ from the NPRM based on 

a comment from Thales and the ICAO 

standards that were adopted after the 

NPRM was published. Additionally, the 

NPRM proposed § 91.176(b)(1)(i) as 

§ 91.176(b)(1)(iii).12

Thales commented that an EFVSequipped foreign-registered aircraft that 

does not have an FAA type design 

approval, but has been certified by its 

own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to 

operate with an EFVS, should not have 

to demonstrate compliance to the FAA 

regulations. Thales stated that this 

requirement is not always feasible as a 

foreign CAA may not be able to 

correctly interpret the FAA regulations. 

In addition, it stated that this 

requirement is not consistent with 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standards without 

citing the specific standards at issue.13

Thales asserted that a foreign operator 

operating in the United States should 

only have to demonstrate that it has 

been authorized to operate the EFVS in 

accordance with the rules of its own 

CAA and that the FAA should recognize 

them as being compliant with FAA rules 

without requesting a specific 

compliance demonstration. 

The FAA agrees that it should not 

require an EFVS-equipped foreignregistered aircraft to have an EFVS that 

meets the FAA’s certification 

requirements if that EFVS has been 

certified by the foreign-registered 

aircraft’s own CAA in accordance with 

ICAO Annex 6. ICAO Annex 6 defines 

an enhanced vision system (EVS) as a 

‘‘system to display electronic real-time 

images of the external scene achieved 

through the use of image sensors.’’ 

ICAO’s definition of EVS encompasses 

the FAA’s definition of EFVS. 

Accordingly, the ICAO Annex 6 

standards on EVS apply to EFVS. 

Annex 6, Part I, Standard 6.23.2 

requires the State of the Operator, in 

approving the operational use of EVS, to 

ensure that the equipment meets the 

appropriate airworthiness certification 

requirements. Annex 6, Part II, Standard 

2.4.15.2 requires the State of Registry, in 

approving the operational use of EVS, to 

ensure that the equipment meets the 

appropriate airworthiness certification 

requirements.14 Based on the FAA’s 

interpretation of these standards, if an 

EFVS-equipped foreign-registered 

aircraft has an EFVS that has been 

approved by the State of the Operator or 

the State of Registry to meet the CAA’s 

airworthiness certification 

requirements, the FAA cannot 

subsequently require that foreignregistered aircraft’s EFVS to meet U.S. 

certification requirements.15

Accordingly, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(i) now require an aircraft to be 

equipped with an operable EFVS that 

meets the applicable airworthiness 

requirements. By using the phrase 

‘‘meets the applicable airworthiness 

requirements,’’ the requirement applies 

to both U.S.-registered aircraft and 

foreign-registered aircraft. The U.S.- 

registered aircraft must be equipped 

with an EFVS that has demonstrated 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90133 

16Section 91.175(l)(7) previously required an 

EFVS to have an FAA type design approval. 

17 ICAO Annex 6, Part I, Standards 3.1.1 and 

3.1.2. 

18 ICAO Annex 6, Part II, Standards 2.1.1.1 and 

2.1.1.2. 

compliance with the applicable 

airworthiness requirements by issuance 

of a design approval through the type 

certification process (i.e., type 

certificate, amended type certificate, or 

supplemental type certificate).16 The 

foreign-registered aircraft must be 

equipped with an EFVS that has been 

approved by either the State of the 

Operator or the State of Registry to meet 

the appropriate airworthiness 

certification requirements in accordance 

with ICAO Annex 6. 

While a foreign-registered aircraft 

with an EFVS certified to a foreign 

airworthiness standard may operate 

within the United States without 

obtaining an FAA type design approval 

and without meeting the FAA’s 

certification requirements, that EFVSequipped foreign-registered aircraft 

must meet all of the requirements in 

§ 91.176, including the equipment 

requirements, in order to be used in 

EFVS operations in the United States. 

This requirement is consistent with 

ICAO standards. Article 11 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation requires aircraft subject to its 

provisions and operating within the 

territory of a contracting State to comply 

with the applicable laws and regulations 

enacted by that State. ICAO Annex 6, 

Part I, Chapter 3 states that an operator 

shall meet and maintain the 

requirements of the States in which the 

operations are conducted and that an 

operator shall ensure that all pilots are 

familiar with the laws, regulations and 

procedures pertinent to the performance 

of their duties prescribed for the areas 

to be traversed.17 Similarly, ICAO 

Annex 6, Part II, Chapter 2.1 requires 

the PIC to comply with the laws, 

regulations, and procedures of those 

States in which operations are 

conducted and to be familiar with the 

laws, regulations, and procedures 

pertinent to the performance of his or 

her duties prescribed for the areas to be 

traversed.18 ICAO Annex 2, Standard 

2.1.1 states that the rules of the air apply 

to aircraft of a contracting State to the 

extent they do not conflict with the 

rules published by the State having 

jurisdiction over the territory flown. The 

FAA also notes that certain foreign 

authorities have imposed requirements 

on operators of U.S.-registered aircraft 

in their airspace that are in addition to 

those established by the FAA to permit 

the conduct of EFVS operations. 

e. Line of Vision and Conformal Display 

Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) states, as 

originally proposed, that an EFVS must 

present EFVS sensor imagery, aircraft 

flight information, and flight symbology 

on a head up display, or an equivalent 

display, so that the imagery, information 

and symbology are clearly visible to the 

pilot flying in his or her normal position 

with the pilot’s line of vision looking 

forward along the flight path. 

Boeing commented that a sensor will 

likely be hard-mounted to the airframe 

such that it is pointing straight along the 

longitudinal axis. It also noted that a 

HUD is aligned with the longitudinal 

axis of the aircraft, and when someone 

flies a ‘‘crabbed’’ approach the flight 

path does not coincide with the 

longitudinal axis. Therefore, Boeing 

recommended that the FAA revise the 

rule from ‘‘looking forward along the 

flight path’’ to ‘‘looking forward along 

the aircraft longitudinal axis with 

adequate downward field of view to 

accommodate sight along the normal 

flight path vector.’’ Boeing noted that it 

is currently allowed to ‘‘ghost’’ 

symbology on the HUD that appears 

outside the HUD field of view, and that 

this capability should be preserved. 

The FAA is not adopting Boeing’s 

recommendation because it could 

unnecessarily restrict new technology 

that becomes available in the future. 

The EFVS requirements are 

performance-based, with means of 

compliance contained and updated as 

necessary in advisory circular 

documents. While the FAA recognizes 

that the aircraft’s flight path may not 

necessarily coincide with the aircraft’s 

longitudinal axis, the phrase ‘‘clearly 

visible to the pilot flying in his or her 

normal position with the line of vision 

looking forward along the flight path’’ is 

intended to ensure that the EFVS 

provides a head up presentation and 

will accommodate Boeing’s 

recommendation. 

As proposed in the NPRM, 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(C) requires an EFVS to 

present the displayed EFVS sensor 

imagery, attitude symbology, flight path 

vector (FPV), and flight path angle 

reference cue (FPARC), and other cues, 

which are referenced to the EFVS sensor 

imagery and external scene topography, 

so that they are aligned with, and scaled 

to, the external view. The term 

‘‘referenced to’’ is used to reflect the 

FAA’s expectation that the vision 

system imagery and certain symbology 

use the same coordinate reference 

system as the pilot’s perspective outside 

view of the world. This is because the 

pilot uses the vision system imagery and 

symbology in coordination with, and 

sometimes in very low visibility as a 

substitute for, the outside view of the 

world, including the terrain, features of 

the runway environment, and topology 

in general. 

Rockwell Collins asked whether it 

could conduct EFVS operations under 

the rule if the ‘‘Flight Path Symbol’’ 

became limited, and therefore 

nonconformal, to the EFVS image due to 

severe crosswinds or blowing snow 

conditions. 

The ability to perform an EFVS 

operation with a nonconformal FPV 

depends on a variety of factors, such as 

the particular EFVS and the type and 

severity of the limiting conditions. 

Because the EFVS is the primary means 

by which the pilot will maneuver the 

airplane to land, conditions that cause 

the FPV to become field-of-view limited, 

and therefore nonconformal, could 

make the display unacceptable for 

landing. An applicant should 

demonstrate EFVS operations on a 

variety of instrument approach 

procedures and in various wind 

conditions with pilot-in-the-loop 

simulation and a flight test, if possible, 

to establish the operational effects that 

limiting conditions might have on 

landing with an EFVS. The FAA may 

impose limitations in the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM) or Airplane Flight 

Manual Supplement (AFMS) for 

conditions where the required level of 

performance is not satisfactorily 

demonstrated. 

f. Flight Path Angle Reference Cue 

(FPARC) 

Pursuant to § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D), the 

EFVS must display the FPARC with a 

pitch scale, and the FPARC must be 

selectable by the pilot to the desired 

descent angle for the approach and be 

suitable for monitoring the vertical 

flight path of the aircraft. The FAA 

made changes to this paragraph from 

what it originally proposed based on 

concerns raised by Boeing. 

Boeing asserted that the proposed 

requirement implied that the pitch scale 

was selectable, not the FPARC. Boeing 

commented that the FAA should revise 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D) to clarify that the 

FPARC must be selectable by the pilot 

to the desired descent angle for the 

approach being flown. Boeing also 

recommended that the provision 

indicate that the appropriate descent 

angle associated with the approach be 

selectable either by the pilot or 

automatically by the flight management 

computer. 

The FAA agrees and is revising 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(D) accordingly. 

However, the FAA does not consider it 

necessary to specify whether the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90134 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

19RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association. It 

was founded in 1935 as the Radio Technical 

Commission for Aeronautics to advance the art and 

science of aviation and aviation electronic systems 

for the benefit of the public. The organization 

functions as a Federal Advisory Committee and 

develops consensus-based recommendations on 

contemporary aviation issues. The organization’s 

recommendations are often used as the basis for 

government and private sector decisions as well as 

the foundation for many FAA documents. For more 

information, see http://www.rtca.org. 

20The term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ refers to the 

individual who is sitting at the pilot controls and 

descent angle selected is accomplished 

manually or automatically. The rule 

does not prohibit the automatic setting 

of the flight path angle; however, the 

pilot must have the ability to either 

manually select the flight path angle or 

to manually override the automatic 

setting. 

g. Requirement To Display Height 

Above Ground Level 

Section 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) specifies an 

equipment requirement for EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout, 

which requires an EFVS to display 

height above ground level, such as that 

provided by a radio altimeter or other 

device capable of providing equivalent 

performance. Dassault Aviation asked 

whether the FAA could provide an 

example of such a device. 

The FAA is not providing an example 

of an equivalent device, because it 

intends this rule to be a performance 

based requirement that is not limited to 

one device and that could accommodate 

future advances in technology. The FAA 

notes, however, that such a device must 

be capable of equivalently performing 

the function of a radio altimeter, which 

is to provide an accurate and reliable 

indication of aircraft height above the 

ground. 

h. Requirement To Display Flare Prompt 

or Flare Guidance 

For EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout in aircraft other than 

rotorcraft, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) requires 

the EFVS to display flare prompt or flare 

guidance. This requirement reflects a 

slight change from what was proposed 

in the NPRM, where the FAA would 

have required the display of flare 

prompt or flare guidance for all aircraft, 

for achieving acceptable touchdown 

performance. 

Helicopter Association International 

(HAI) commented that rotorcraft 

certificated under parts 27 and 29 

should be excluded from the 

requirement to display flare prompt or 

flare guidance, because parts 27 and 29 

do not require flare prompt or flare 

guidance based on lower operating 

speed and maneuverability. The FAA 

agrees for the reasons the commenter 

provided. Accordingly, 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) now excepts 

rotorcraft from the requirement. 

Boeing and Airbus also raised 

concerns about the definition of 

acceptable touchdown performance. 

Boeing stated that the FAA should 

define acceptable touchdown 

performance in guidance material, 

because it was unsure whether the term 

meant landing in the touchdown zone, 

compliance with landing performance 

specified in AC 120–28D, equivalency 

to the AIII mode of a head up guidance 

system, or compliance with some other 

performance standard. Boeing also 

suggested that the FAA address 

quantitative standards in guidance 

material to ensure an applicant or 

designer can demonstrate compliance 

with the regulatory requirement. Airbus 

provided a similar comment, suggesting 

that the FAA provide pass/fail criteria 

for acceptable touchdown performance 

during an EFVS operation using flare 

prompt or flare guidance. 

The FAA is not adopting a 

requirement ‘‘as appropriate, for 

acceptable touchdown performance’’ 

under § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) because the 

term ‘‘acceptable touchdown 

performance’’ is both vague, as 

identified by the commenters, and 

extraneous. ‘‘Acceptable touchdown 

performance’’ is not a regulatory term to 

date. Nor is it defined in the regulations. 

Furthermore, § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(F) already 

requires an EFVS to display 

characteristics, dynamics, and cues that 

are suitable for manual control of the 

aircraft to touchdown in the touchdown 

zone of the runway of intended landing. 

Because paragraph (a)(1)(i)(F) requires 

the flare cue, i.e. flare prompt or flare 

guidance, to be suitable for manual 

control of the aircraft to touchdown in 

the touchdown zone of the runway of 

intended landing, it is therefore 

unnecessary to require an EFVS to 

display flare prompt or flare guidance 

for achieving ‘‘acceptable touchdown 

performance’’ in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B). 

Each applicant for a type design 

approval must demonstrate touchdown 

performance for their particular EFVS 

implementation using either flare 

prompt or flare guidance. AC 20–167, 

paragraph 6–2(f)(4) specifically 

discusses landing performance 

demonstrations for EFVS operations 

conducted to touchdown and rollout 

and provides a means of demonstrating 

compliance for applicants or designers. 

Boeing further commented that the 

FAA should provide touchdown 

requirements that are strictly 

performance-based and asserted that the 

FAA should not require flare guidance 

or flare cue for a particular EFVS 

implementation if the pilot can achieve 

acceptable sink rate and position 

without them. The FAA disagrees. The 

FAA finds it necessary to provide the 

pilot with additional information to 

conduct a flare maneuver during 

conditions of low visibility typically 

encountered during EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. The FAA based 

the requirement in § 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) 

on RTCA DO–315A and incorporated it 

in the interest of safety to ensure 

continued safe approaches and landings 

in low visibility conditions.19 The FAA 

notes that by requiring flare prompt or 

flare guidance for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout, it provides 

manufacturers flexibility to use either 

means to achieve acceptable touchdown 

performance. 

Airbus and Thales raised concerns 

about the requirement to display flare 

prompt or flare guidance when using 

autoland during EFVS operations. 

Airbus commented that EFVS 

operations using autoland should be 

possible, but the requirement to display 

flare prompt or flare guidance is not 

relevant when using it. Thales stated 

that the FAA should mandate flare 

prompt or flare guidance for manual 

operations using the EFVS to achieve 

acceptable touchdown performance, but 

it should not require an EFVS to display 

flare prompt or flare guidance during an 

approach using EFVS that is performed 

with a certified autoland function. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters. All autoland systems to 

date have been approved based on 

performance demonstrations at runways 

with Category III approach 

infrastructure. If conducting an autoland 

approach with any other kind of runway 

infrastructure (i.e., less than Category 

III), the visual conditions must be 

sufficient for the pilot to monitor the 

operation and, if necessary, take 

immediate manual control. EFVS 

provides enhanced flight visibility to 

compensate for what the pilot cannot 

see unaided. In the case of an EFVS 

landing, the EFVS must be equipped 

with an approved flare prompt or flare 

guidance as part of the required visual 

information to be eligible for EFVS 

operational approval to land. For this 

reason, even if the crew is approved to 

use autoland during an EFVS operation, 

the EFVS must be equipped with and 

must display all of the required features. 

i. Pilot Monitoring Display 

When a minimum flightcrew of more 

than one pilot is required, 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(ii) requires the aircraft to 

be equipped with a display that 

provides the pilot monitoring 20 with 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90135 

monitoring the operation of the aircraft. 

Historically, the FAA has referred to this individual 

as the pilot not flying. In 2003, the FAA amended 

AC 120–71A, Standard Operating Procedures for 

Flight Deck Crewmembers, and replaced the term 

‘‘pilot not flying’’ with ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ to 

convey that the pilot not flying should be actively 

engaged in the safe operation of the aircraft and, as 

such, should be trained and evaluated in 

performing active pilot monitoring skills. See 

Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers 

and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 67800, 67812 (Nov. 

12, 2013) (discussing pilot monitoring duties and 

training). 

21Maximum primary field of view is based on the 

maximum vertical and horizontal visual fields from 

the design eye reference point. The values for the 

maximum vertical visual field (relative to normal 

line-of-sight forward of the airplane) are +40 

degrees up and ¥20 degrees down. The values for 

the maximum horizontal visual field are +35 

degrees left and +35 degrees right. AC 25–11B and 

AC 20–167A. 

EFVS sensor imagery Also, as proposed, 

the pilot monitoring display may 

provide symbology but any symbology 

displayed may not adversely obscure 

the sensor imagery of the runway 

environment. However, the FAA is not 

adopting the requirement for the pilot 

monitoring display to be located within 

the maximum primary field of view 21 of 

the pilot monitoring. This departure 

from what the FAA originally proposed 

arose as a result of the FAA’s own 

continued review of the proposal. The 

FAA is also not adopting the 

requirement for the EFVS sensor 

imagery and aircraft flight symbology to 

be displayed to the pilot monitoring on 

a HUD or an equivalent display for 

certain future EFVS operations at the 

Administrator’s discretion. This 

departure from what the FAA originally 

proposed arose out of comments. 

Upon further reflection, the FAA is 

not adopting the requirement for the PM 

display to be located in the ‘‘maximum 

primary field of view’’ because the term 

‘‘maximum primary field of view’’ is not 

used or defined in the regulations todate and the proposed location 

requirement is unnecessary. When a PM 

display is installed on an aircraft, it 

must meet the arrangement and 

visibility requirements in §§ 23.1321, 

25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321, which 

will achieve the same objective as the 

proposed requirement by requiring the 

PM display to be located so that any 

pilot seated at the controls can monitor 

the airplane’s flight path and the 

instruments with minimum head and 

eye movement. The FAA will also 

require aircraft that pre-date §§ 23.1321, 

25.1321, 27.1321, and 29.1321 to meet 

the arrangement and visibility 

requirements in those sections for the 

installation of PM displays. Because the 

airworthiness requirements of 

§§ 23.1321, 25.1321, 27.1321, and 

29.1321 will already ensure the proper 

placement of a PM display, the FAA 

finds it unnecessary to adopt a location 

requirement in the operating rule. 

Several commenters shared concerns 

about the provision in proposed 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(ii) that would have 

allowed the Administrator to require a 

head up display, or equivalent display, 

for the pilot monitoring based upon the 

EFVS operation to be conducted. Boeing 

noted that designers and operators 

needed to know the conditions under 

which the FAA might require a head up 

display for the pilot monitoring. 

Similarly, Airbus asked the FAA for 

clarification, and Thales suggested that 

the FAA develop criteria to define when 

a pilot monitoring had to have a head 

up display. Additionally, Bombardier 

Aerospace was concerned that, while 

the FAA intended the language to 

provide for future technological 

advancements, the agency could 

immediately apply the requirement to 

current installations where it would be 

impractical to implement. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

that the proposal was unclear. The FAA 

intended to address future EFVS 

operations and technological 

advancements; however, based on the 

confusion surrounding the provision, 

the FAA has decided not to adopt it. 

Instead, to facilitate the performance of 

future EFVS operations, the FAA is 

adding new § 91.176(a)(4) that states 

that the Administrator may prescribe 

additional equipment, operational, and 

visibility and visual reference 

requirements to account for specific 

equipment characteristics, operational 

procedures, or approach characteristics. 

These requirements will be specified in 

an operator’s operations specifications, 

management specifications, or letter of 

authorization authorizing the use of 

EFVS. This provision will better 

facilitate the FAA’s ability to respond to 

future technological developments 

without causing confusion around the 

pilot monitoring requirement. 

Boeing also commented that the pilot 

monitoring display requirements should 

include a horizon line, flight path vector 

cue, and FPARC in addition to the EFVS 

sensor imagery. Boeing contended that 

without this aircraft flight symbology, 

the pilot monitoring would have no 

cues with which to judge performance 

and noted that RTCA DO–315A 

specifies the additional cues. 

During EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout, when a 

minimum flightcrew of more than one 

pilot is required, the aircraft must be 

equipped with a display that provides 

the pilot monitoring with EFVS sensor 

imagery. The FAA finds it unnecessary 

to require additional features on the 

pilot monitoring display, such as an 

artificial horizon line, a flight path 

vector cue, and a FPARC, because the 

pilot monitoring display requirements 

are intended only to enable that pilot to 

see a real time sensor image of the 

required visual references. Section 

91.176(a)(1)(ii) is a minimum 

requirement, however. Accordingly, it 

does not preclude OEMs and operators 

from including additional features, such 

as those described by the commenters. 

The FAA notes that any additional 

features that are displayed on the pilot 

monitoring display may not interfere 

with the EFVS image of the required 

visual references. 

Boeing further stated that it was 

unclear whether the pilot monitoring 

display had to be a repeater of the 

display provided to the flying pilot, or 

an independent system. Sierra Nevada 

Corporation submitted a similar 

comment asking the FAA to clarify 

whether the EFVS sensor imagery 

required to be provided to the pilot 

monitoring had to be identical to that 

provided to the pilot flying on the HUD, 

or whether the pilot monitoring display 

could utilize imagery that was 

augmented by color, symbolic 

representation of features and obstacles, 

a synthetic database of features and 

obstacles, an alternate perspective view 

such as a top-down view, an alternate 

EFVS sensor source, or blending. 

The FAA intends the regulatory 

requirement for the pilot monitoring 

display to be performance based. 

Accordingly, the provision does not 

specifically require a repeater display or 

an independent system. Nor does it 

preclude the display of imagery that is 

augmented by features such as those 

described by Sierra Nevada Corporation. 

Whether the pilot monitoring display 

should be a repeater display or an 

independent system will depend on the 

operation to be conducted. AC 20–167A 

contains means of compliance for the 

pilot monitoring display. The FAA also 

notes that, as display technology 

continues to improve, it will evaluate 

additional display capabilities and 

features that become available provided 

the display meets applicable 

airworthiness requirements. 

Rockwell Collins also submitted 

comments on the pilot monitoring 

display. It asserted that the FAA should 

take into account other monitoring 

methods, such as those used by a pilot 

monitoring the safe conduct of a Head 

up Guidance System (HGS)-flown 

Category III approach, landing, and 

rollout. Such monitoring methods 

would not require a second HUD, nor 

would they require the pilot monitoring 

display to repeat the HUD symbology. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

22The visual reference requirements under 

§ 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) were derived from the 

visual reference requirements under § 91.175(c)(3), 

which were established for runways. 

23Section 91.175(l) was a rule subject to waiver 

under § 91.905. 

For example, a person could use 

expanded deviation scales based on 

global positioning system (GPS) to 

verify alignment with the runway, and 

ADS–B information to monitor other 

aircraft and vehicles on the runway. 

Rockwell Collins also proposed that the 

requirement identify the items that the 

pilot monitoring must monitor and 

assess, rather than indicating the actual 

equipment the pilot monitoring must 

use to perform the monitoring tasks, 

such as a display of EFVS imagery. 

The FAA is not adopting Rockwell 

Collins’ recommendations. When a 

minimum flightcrew of more than one 

pilot is required, the pilot monitoring 

must have a display that provides him 

or her with EFVS sensor imagery. This 

requirement is necessary because, when 

the pilot flying relies on EFVS from DA/ 

DH to touchdown and rollout, it cannot 

be assumed that the pilot monitoring 

sees anything of the outside 

environment using natural vision. 

Providing the pilot monitoring with 

EFVS sensor imagery supports his or her 

view of the outside environment, 

enables confirmation of the required 

visual references and safe conduct of the 

approach and landing, and provides 

common situational awareness between 

the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring. 

The FAA notes, however, that the pilot 

monitoring display is not the only 

source of flight path information 

available to the pilot monitoring. The 

pilot monitoring may use GPS and 

ADS–B information, as Rockwell Collins 

suggested, in addition to the EFVS 

sensor imagery. The FAA further notes 

that the pilot monitoring should 

monitor sources of information that he 

or she would normally monitor during 

an approach and landing. 

j. Applicability of EFVS Provisions to 

Rotorcraft Operations 

The GAMA, HAI, and Eurocopter and 

American Eurocopter commented that 

the scope of the NPRM appeared to 

apply to both fixed-wing airplanes and 

rotorcraft; however, the technical 

requirements appear to apply only to 

fixed wing airplanes. GAMA and 

Eurocopter and American Eurocopter 

recommended that the FAA modify 

§ 91.176(a)(1), as proposed in the 

NPRM, to ensure the equipment 

requirements accommodated the 

differences between airplanes and 

rotorcraft. They also recommended that 

the FAA consider permitting the use of 

EFVS in rotorcraft IFR operations, such 

as wide area augmentation system/

localizer performance with vertical 

guidance (WAAS/LPV) approaches, 

published instrument approach 

procedures to heliports, offshore 

helicopter operations, and point in 

space instrument approaches. 

The FAA notes that this rule does not 

preclude persons from conducting EFVS 

operations under IFR in rotorcraft. 

Section 91.176(a) limits EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout to 

approaches with a DA/DH and prohibits 

the pilot from using circling minimums. 

Currently, there are no instrument 

approach criteria or procedures that 

have been developed for straight-in 

landing operations below DA/DH under 

IFR to heliports or platforms. If such 

approach procedures were developed in 

the future for heliports or platforms, 

along with appropriate visual reference 

requirements for rotorcraft operations,22

persons could conduct EFVS operations 

to a landing in rotorcraft on these 

approaches. However, EFVS operations 

may not be conducted on approaches to 

a point-in-space followed by a ‘‘proceed 

VFR’’ visual segment, or on approaches 

designed to a specific landing site using 

a ‘‘proceed visually’’ visual segment. 

HAI also commented that the FAA 

should expand its references to landing 

and rollout to address the 

maneuverability of aircraft certificated 

under parts 27 and 29 and that it should 

specify ‘‘approach to hover’’ and ‘‘hover 

taxiing.’’ The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter. The FAA finds it 

unnecessary to expand the terminology 

in the EFVS regulations to specifically 

encompass the maneuverability of 

rotorcraft because it did not intend the 

terms landing and rollout to restrict 

persons from conducting EFVS 

operations in rotorcraft. The FAA also 

notes that this rule does not address taxi 

operations. Accordingly, this rule does 

not apply to hover taxiing. 

k. Requirement To Obtain a Certificate 

of Waiver When Conducting Certain 

EFVS Operations 

Section 91.176(d) states that the 

requirement to have an EFVS that meets 

the applicable airworthiness 

requirements specified in 

§ 91.176(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), and 

(b)(2)(iii) does not apply to operations 

conducted in an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under § 21.191 

for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations provided the 

Administrator has determined that the 

operations can be conducted safely in 

accordance with operating limitations 

issued for that purpose. This paragraph 

was added as a result of comments. 

The 2004 EFVS regulations, 

specifically § 91.175(l)(2), required a 

person to have a certified EFVS in order 

to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision 

to descend below the authorized DA/DH 

or MDA. Proposed § 91.176 would have 

required the same. The FAA recognizes, 

however, that an EFVS used to obtain an 

FAA type design approval may not yet 

be certified. To date, a person obtaining 

an FAA type design approval with an 

EFVS that has not yet been certified has 

been required to obtain a certificate of 

waiver 23 in order to use the EFVS in 

lieu of natural vision to descend below 

the DA/DH or MDA during flights prior 

to type design approval. 

FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Elbit 

Systems of America, Sierra Nevada 

Corporation, and GAMA commented 

that the FAA should eliminate the 

requirement to obtain a certificate of 

waiver from the EFVS rules in order to 

demonstrate compliance during EFVS 

certification flights. Several of these 

commenters further stated that the FAA 

should remove the term ‘‘certified’’ 

because the operating rules assume the 

equipment is certified. Additionally, 

many commenters felt that the FAA 

should not require waivers for 

certification flight tests that are 

conducted with aircraft in the 

experimental category. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns and is revising 

the EFVS regulations by adding 

§ 91.176(d), which enables persons to 

conduct EFVS certification flights 

without obtaining a waiver, provided 

the Administrator has determined that 

the operations can be conducted safely 

in accordance with operating limitations 

issued for that purpose. The FAA will 

issue operating limitations when it 

approves an applicant’s program letter 

describing the flight operations to be 

conducted and issues the experimental 

certificate for the purpose of research 

and development or showing 

compliance with regulations. The FAA 

is also adding the exception and a 

reference to § 91.176(d) to the 

introductions in § 91.176(a) and (b). The 

FAA finds that eliminating the waiver 

requirement, which resulted from the 

promulgation of § 91.175(l) and (m) in 

2004, will streamline the process both 

for the FAA and for applicants seeking 

to certify an EFVS. This will be 

accomplished without a reduction in 

FAA oversight. The FAA notes, 

however, that an operator is not relieved 

from complying with the EFVS 

operating rules when it places an 

aircraft in the experimental category; it 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90137 

24See Instrument Flying Handbook, FAA–H– 

8083–15B (2012) (stating that the term ‘‘minimums’’ 

refers to the landing section of an instrument 

approach chart, which sets forth the lowest altitude 

and visibility approved for the instrument approach 

procedure). 

25The AIM provides the aviation community 

with basic flight information and Air Traffic Control 

(ATC) procedures. The PCG promotes a common 

understanding of terms used in the ATC system, 

including terms which are intended for pilot/

controller communications. The TERPS consists of 

criteria for constructing terminal instrument 

procedures. In the AIM, ‘‘straight-in approach’’ 

describes a procedure with straight-in landing 

minimums, without regard to whether or not a 

procedure turn is required. In the PCG, ‘‘straightin approach’’ means an instrument approach where 

the final approach is begun without first having 

executed a procedure turn, but not necessarily 

completed with a straight-in landing or made to 

straight-in landing minimums. The PCG defines a 

‘‘straight-in landing’’ as ‘‘a landing made on a 

runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final 

approach course following completion of an 

instrument approach.’’ The use of ‘‘straight-in 

approach’’ in TERPS criteria generally refers to an 

approach that is aligned with a runway—not 

necessarily within 30 degrees—and for which 

straight-in landing minimums are authorized. 

is only relieved from the requirement to 

have an EFVS with an FAA type design 

approval for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with the regulations. AC 90–106A and 

AC 20–167A contain guidance material 

pertaining to the § 91.176(d) exception. 

2. Operating Requirements 

a. Approaches Permitted for EFVS 

Operations 

Under § 91.176(a), a person 

conducting an EFVS operation in an 

aircraft below the authorized DA/DH to 

touchdown and rollout must conduct 

the operation on an approach with 

minimums 24 that include a DA/DH. In 

the NPRM, the FAA had proposed to 

permit an EFVS operation below the 

authorized DA/DH to touchdown and 

rollout only using a straight-in precision 

instrument approach procedure or an 

approach procedure with approved 

vertical guidance. This change in the 

final rule arises out of comments asking 

the FAA to clarify what instrument 

approach procedures can be used for 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout. This change in language does 

not constitute a change in operational 

concept. 

Boeing and the Airline Pilots 

Association (ALPA) objected to 

proposed § 91.176(a) because it was 

unclear which approach procedures 

they could use to conduct EFVS 

operations. For the reasons discussed in 

greater detail below, § 91.176(a) no 

longer states that EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout may be 

conducted using only straight-in 

precision instrument approach 

procedures or approach procedures with 

approved vertical guidance. 

Boeing objected to limiting EFVS 

operations to ‘‘straight-in’’ approaches 

as defined in the Pilot/Controller 

Glossary (PCG). Relying on the PCG, 

Boeing asserted that a straight-in 

approach applies to an approach with 

no procedure turn, and a straight-in 

landing refers to a landing made on a 

runway aligned within 30 degrees of the 

final approach course following 

completion of an instrument approach. 

Boeing contended that flying a 

procedure turn should not affect 

whether someone could conduct EFVS 

operations. Boeing recommended that 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout be permitted using a ‘‘straight-in 

landing’’ from a precision approach or 

an approach with approved vertical 

guidance. Boeing recommended similar 

revisions to § 91.176(b). 

The FAA agrees with Boeing that 

operators could have concluded from 

the proposal that a ‘‘straight-in’’ 

instrument approach procedure refers to 

an approach with no procedure turn. 

This is because the term ‘‘straight-in 

approach’’ is used differently in the 

Aeronautical Information Manual 

(AIM), the PCG, and the United States 

Standard for Terminal Instrument 

Procedures (TERPS).25 The FAA did not 

intend to limit EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout to instrument 

approaches where the final approach 

was begun without first having executed 

a procedure turn. Therefore, § 91.176(a) 

now requires that a person must 

conduct an EFVS operation to 

touchdown and rollout on an approach 

with minimums that include a DA/DH. 

This revision ensures that a person may 

conduct EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout using precision approaches 

or approaches with approved vertical 

guidance regardless of whether the pilot 

first executes a procedure turn. 

Furthermore, paragraph (a)(2)(i) clarifies 

that EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout are not permitted on circling 

approaches. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

eliminates the confusion surrounding 

the terms straight-in approach and 

straight-in landing, while achieving the 

same objective—prohibiting EFVS 

operations using circling minimums. 

The FAA made similar revisions to 

§ 91.176(b)(2)(i) as suggested by Boeing. 

Boeing also recommended that the 

FAA permit EFVS operations on curved 

required navigation performance (RNP) 

approaches, which may have a straightin landing segment. Boeing stated that 

the use of curved RNP approaches is 

increasing, that they are often used in 

mountainous terrain where go-arounds 

could be more of an issue, and that 

EFVS could improve safety and 

efficiency in such situations. 

The FAA agrees that § 91.176(a) and 

(b) should not prohibit persons from 

conducting EFVS operations on curved 

RNP approaches that have a straight-in 

landing segment. RNP approaches are 

approved, vertically guided instrument 

approach procedures that are designed 

to align with a specific runway and 

terminate with a DA. While their line of 

minima is charted somewhat differently 

than other approaches with straight-in 

‘‘S’’ line of minima, the curved RNP line 

of minima specifies a DA. Accordingly, 

§ 91.176(a) and (b) permit RNP 

approaches. However, because EFVS 

performance may affect the specific 

approaches that an operator may 

conduct, the FAA may define applicable 

limitations in an operator’s Operations 

Specifications (OpSpec), Management 

Specifications (MSpec), or Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) accordingly. 

ALPA stated that the proposal would 

permit an EFVS operation to touchdown 

and rollout on a ‘‘straight-in precision 

instrument approach procedure or an 

approach with approved vertical 

guidance,’’ which would seem to 

encompass an approach procedure with 

vertical guidance (APV). However, APV 

describes a class of approach procedures 

defined in ICAO Annex 6 as an 

approach procedure ‘‘which utilizes 

lateral and vertical guidance but does 

not meet the requirements established 

for precision approach and landing 

operations.’’ Based on this definition, a 

person could conclude that an APV 

approach is a non-precision approach 

procedure. The proposal indicated that 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout would not be permitted on nonprecision approaches. ALPA noted that 

this could cause confusion and 

recommended that the FAA clarify what 

it meant by ‘‘approved vertical 

guidance.’’ 

The FAA agrees with ALPA that the 

phrase ‘‘straight-in precision approach 

procedure or an approach with 

approved vertical guidance’’ is 

confusing because persons could 

conclude that APV approaches are nonprecision approaches, which are not 

permitted under § 91.176(a). The FAA 

did not intend to prohibit persons from 

conducting EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout on APV 

approaches, which will have a charted 

DA/DH. Therefore, for this reason and 

in addition to the reasons Boeing raised, 

§ 91.176(a) now permits EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout on 

approaches with minimums that 

include a DA/DH. Additionally, as 

mentioned previously, § 91.176(a)(2)(i) 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

specifies that persons conducting EFVS 

operations may not use circling 

minimums. The FAA believes these 

revisions clarify that EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout may be 

conducted on APV approaches. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation suggested 

editorial changes to proposed 

§ 91.176(a) to clarify that persons must 

follow the requirements specified in 

paragraph (a). The commenter 

recommended similar revisions to 

§ 91.176(b). The FAA agrees with the 

commenter and adopted the editorial 

changes in § 91.176(a), which more 

clearly articulate the regulatory 

requirements. The FAA did not, 

however, adopt the editorial changes in 

§ 91.176(b) because they did not 

coincide with the revised language in 

that paragraph. 

Dassault Aviation asked whether the 

FAA would take into account the new 

approach classifications described in 

the revised draft ICAO All Weather 

Operations (AWO) Manual in the EFVS 

regulations. Dassault Aviation stated 

that the draft AWO Manual describes 2D 

and 3D approaches rather than 

‘‘precision approaches’’ and 

‘‘approaches with vertical guidance.’’ 

The FAA is not including the ICAO 

terms or definitions in this final rule as 

they are outside the scope of the NPRM. 

The necessary references and 

descriptions in U.S. guidance material 

have not been updated at this time, but 

the FAA notes that the agency continues 

to work with ICAO on this subject. 

Rockwell Collins commented that the 

FAA’s statement in the proposal about 

not permitting EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout on nonprecision approaches implies that nonprecision approaches are no longer an 

approved EFVS operation. The FAA 

disagrees. Section 91.176 contains two 

distinct types of EFVS operations. 

Section 91.176(a) contains the new 

regulations, which enable EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout. 

Section 91.176(b) contains the 

regulations originally found in 

§ 91.175(l) and (m), which enable EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

Section 91.176(a) permits EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

only on approaches that have a DA/DH. 

However, § 91.176(b) continues to 

permit EFVS operations down to 100 

feet above the TDZE on non-precision 

approaches, just as § 91.175(l) has 

allowed these operations since 2004. 

Finally, Gulfstream commented that 

§ 91.176(a) should allow EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout on 

the same instrument approach 

procedures for which EFVS to 100 feet 

operations are permitted, which would 

include approaches without published 

vertical guidance. The FAA does not 

agree. The intent of § 91.176(a) is to 

provide for a stabilized descent and to 

ensure the aircraft is oriented toward 

the runway of intended landing while 

conducting an EFVS operation to 

touchdown and rollout. A stabilized 

descent reduces the need to maneuver at 

low altitudes, thereby minimizing risk. 

Therefore, the pilot must conduct the 

EFVS operation to touchdown and 

rollout on an approach to a DA or DH 

using vertical guidance that is part of 

the approach design. 

The FAA notes, however, that 

operators who have been issued 

OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073, ‘‘Vertical 

Navigation (VNAV) Instrument 

Approach Procedures (IAP) Using 

Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) as a 

Decision Altitude (DA)/Decision Height 

(DH),’’ may conduct EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout on certain nonprecision approaches that use an MDA 

as a DA/DH in accordance with the 

OpSpec/MSpec/LOA. 

OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C073 authorizes 

operators to use an MDA as a DA/DH 

using vertical navigation (VNAV) on 

certain instrument approach 

procedures, which are listed in OpSpec/ 

MSpec/LOA C052, ‘‘Straight-In NonPrecision, APV, and Category I Precision 

Approach and Landing Minima—All 

Airports.’’ It has always been the FAA’s 

intent to allow EFVS operations on 

certain non-precision approaches in 

accordance with OpSpec/MSpec/LOA 

C073. However, as discussed above, we 

made changes to proposed § 91.176(a) as 

a result of comments. In making these 

changes, § 91.176(a) would have 

prohibited EFVS operations on certain 

non-precision approaches conducted in 

accordance with OpSpec/MSpec/LOA 

C073 because paragraph (a) would have 

restricted EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout to approach 

procedures with minimums that 

included a DA or DH. Accordingly, the 

FAA is adding language to § 91.176(a) 

that allows an operator who is otherwise 

authorized by the Administrator, such 

as through OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA 

C073, to use an MDA as a DA/DH with 

vertical navigation on an instrument 

approach procedure, to conduct an 

EFVS operation to touchdown and 

rollout in an aircraft below the 

authorized MDA in accordance with 

that authorization. When an operator is 

conducting an EFVS operation in 

accordance with OpSpec/MSpec//LOA 

C073, that operator must still meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of § 91.176. 

The FAA notes that it is revising the 

regulatory language to be performance 

based and allow for new technologies 

and approaches that ensure a stabilized 

visual segment. Accordingly, this final 

rule allows EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout on all approach 

procedures with an authorized DA or 

DH, and it omits direct reference to the 

types of approach procedures permitted 

and eliminates the term ‘‘approved 

vertical guidance.’’ The FAA recognizes 

that many factors may affect an 

operator’s ability to conduct an EFVS 

operation. As stated in § 91.176(a)(4), 

the FAA may prescribe additional 

limitations through an OpSpec, MSpec, 

or LOA to ensure the safe conduct of 

EFVS operations. 

b. Touchdown Zone 

As proposed in the NPRM, for EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout, 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(v) requires the aircraft to 

continuously be in a position from 

which a descent to a landing on the 

intended runway can be made at a 

normal rate of descent using normal 

maneuvers, and § 91.176(a)(2)(vi) 

requires the descent rate to allow 

touchdown to occur within the 

touchdown zone of the runway of 

intended landing. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about the term ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(vi). Boeing commented 

that the FAA needs to define the term 

‘‘touchdown zone’’ for purposes of 

EFVS operations and pointed out that it 

is defined differently in different 

documents. For example, the AIM 

defines the touchdown zone as the first 

3,000 feet of the runway beginning at 

the threshold, but RTCA DO–315A and 

its revision, RTCA DO–315B, define the 

touchdown zone as the first 3,000 feet 

or first one-third of the runway, 

whichever is shorter. Boeing asked the 

FAA for clarification because applicants 

and EFVS equipment designers need to 

know what the performance 

expectations are for the EFVS 

equipment. Dassault Aviation 

recommended that the FAA specify that 

the touchdown zone is the first 3,000 

feet or the first one-third of the runway 

because the 3,000-foot metric may not 

be adequate for short runways. An 

individual commenter expressed similar 

concerns and added that ICAO defines 

touchdown zone as the portion of a 

runway, beyond the threshold, where it 

is intended that a landing aircraft first 

contact the runway. He also noted that 

other FAA documents contain guidance 

to land in the first one-third of a 

runway. Given the operational 

implications of EFVS operations, he 

recommended that the FAA revise the 

EFVS rule and the AIM to emphasize 

that landing in the first third of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90139 

26The FAA and industry are currently working 

together to address EFVS and LED interoperability 

through the SAE G–20 Airport Lighting Committee. 

This committee was tasked by the FAA to evaluate 

and recommend potential solutions. To date, 

several prototype IR/LED light fixtures have been 

developed and are currently being tested at the 

FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center. 

Additionally, in October 2014, the FAA conducted 

an LED Symposium comprised of FAA, other 

government agencies, SAE G–20, and industry 

participants. One of the action items from the LED 

Symposium was to develop a comprehensive 

operational test plan and conduct operational 

flights and evaluations using EFVS, the LED 

approach lighting system at the FAA’s William J. 

Hughes Technical Center, and prototype infrared 

emitters. 

runway or the first 3,000 feet, whichever 

is less, should suffice for almost all 

landing operations by fixed wing 

aircraft. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

that, for the purpose of EFVS 

operations, pilots should touch down in 

the first 3,000 feet or the first one-third 

of the runway, whichever is shorter. 

However, the FAA will not amend the 

definition of ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in the 

AIM, nor define ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in 

the EFVS rule because the term has a 

broader application than EFVS 

operations. The AIM contains the ICAO 

definition of touchdown zone but also 

defines it as the first 3,000 feet of the 

runway beginning at the threshold. This 

definition is used to determine TDZE in 

the development of straight-in landing 

minimums for instrument approaches. 

The subject of landing performance is 

complex and is affected by many 

variables such as available landing 

runway, surface conditions, aircraft 

performance, operating procedures, and 

many other factors. Furthermore, the 

use of the term touchdown zone in 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(vi) is similar to its use in 

other sections of the regulations that 

address both EFVS and other 

operations, such as §§ 91.175(c)(1), 

121.651(c)(1), 121.651(d)(1), and 

91.175(l)(1), the latter of which is being 

moved to § 91.176(b)(2)(v) in this final 

rule. 

Accordingly, although the FAA does 

not consider it appropriate to amend the 

definition of ‘‘touchdown zone’’ in this 

rule, the FAA notes that AC 20–167A 

specifies a relevant means of 

compliance to obtain airworthiness 

approval for EFVS. AC 20–167A, 

paragraph 6–2(f)(4) states that, during 

airworthiness performance 

demonstrations, persons should 

demonstrate longitudinal touchdown 

performance within the first one-third, 

or the first 3,000 feet of the runway, 

whichever is more restrictive, and 

touchdown performance should be 

equivalent to or better than that 

achieved in visual operations for the 

specific aircraft. 

c. Definition of ‘‘EFVS Operation’’ and 

Underlying Operational Concepts 

Section 1.1 defines ‘‘EFVS operation’’ 

as an operation in which visibility 

conditions require an EFVS to be used 

in lieu of natural vision to perform an 

approach or landing, determine 

enhanced flight visibility, identify 

required visual references, or conduct 

the rollout. 

Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to 

clarify why the definition of an EFVS 

operation includes determining 

enhanced flight visibility, identifying 

required visual references, and 

conducting the rollout, whereas the 

EFVS I and EFVS II operations referred 

to in AC 90–106A only appear to 

address approaches below DA/DH and 

approaches to touchdown. 

The definition of an EFVS operation 

is consistent with the operational 

descriptions in proposed AC 90–106A. 

While an EFVS can provide situational 

awareness in any phase of flight, such 

use does not constitute an EFVS 

operation unless visibility conditions 

require the use of an EFVS in lieu of 

natural vision to perform an approach or 

landing, determine enhanced flight 

visibility, identify required visual 

references, or conduct the rollout. When 

flight visibility using natural vision is 

less than what is required by the 

instrument approach procedure being 

flown, a person may perform an EFVS 

operation. It would be an EFVS 

operation in this scenario because the 

visibility conditions require the person 

to use the EFVS in lieu of natural vision 

to descend below DA/DH. More 

specifically, the person must use the 

EFVS to assess that the enhanced flight 

visibility is not less than what is 

required by the instrument approach 

procedure and to identify the required 

visual references. The EFVS I and EFVS 

II operations referred to in proposed AC 

90–106A are consistent with the 

definition of an EFVS operation, 

because they address operations where 

the visibility conditions require the use 

of an EFVS for descent, namely, EFVS 

operations. The FAA notes, however, 

that AC 90–106A no longer contains the 

terms EFVS I and EFVS II. Instead, that 

AC uses terminology consistent with 

§ 91.176. 

d. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and 

EFVS Operations 

The Aerospace Medical Association 

commented that many airports are 

installing new position, taxi, and 

obstruction lights that use LED lights. It 

stated that night vision goggles (NVGs) 

and current EFVS systems are unable to 

sense LED lights. As a result, aircrew 

using EFVS to descend through the 

weather may not acquire visual aids or 

obstruction lights that use LEDs. Central 

Management Services (CMS) submitted 

a similar comment noting that EFVS is 

designed to sense incandescent lights, 

not LED lights, and that as airports 

install LED lighting to save money, the 

new lighting will eliminate the benefits 

of EFVS. The commenter also stated that 

the FAA should require airports to 

install Infrared (IR) emitters in all new 

LED airport lighting systems and retrofit 

existing LED installations. Additionally, 

the commenter stated that airports will 

not spend the money to install IR 

emitters on their own, and it is only a 

matter of time before LEDs appear in 

approach lighting and runway lighting 

systems. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns regarding LED 

lighting; however, the FAA disagrees 

that the installation of LED lights will 

eliminate the benefits of EFVS and it 

does not mandate the installation of 

specific lighting technologies. On 

January 4, 2007, Congress passed the 

Energy Independence and Security Act, 

which mandates phasing out certain 

incandescent lights for energy 

conservation purposes. As a result, LED 

lighting is becoming more prevalent in 

the NAS. While currently approved IRbased EFVS cannot sense LED lighting, 

LEDs do not completely eliminate the 

benefits of EFVS. The EFVS regulations 

provide for required visual references 

other than lighting, such as markings, 

the runway threshold, and the runway 

touchdown zone landing surface. 

Therefore, as long as a pilot can see the 

required visual references using an 

EFVS, he or she may conduct an EFVS 

operation. The FAA also notes that the 

presence of LEDs does not make an 

EFVS operation unsafe. If the required 

visual references are not distinctly 

visible and identifiable by the pilot, 

then the pilot must execute a missed 

approach just as he or she would if the 

approach were being conducted with 

natural vision instead of EFVS. The 

FAA has addressed operational 

considerations associated with LED 

lighting in AC 90–106A and Information 

for Operators (InFO) 11004, Enhanced 

Flight Vision System (EFVS), Enhanced 

Vision Systems (EVS), and Night Vision 

Goggles (NVG) Compatibility with 

Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Airports 

and on Obstacles. Also, EFVS sensors 

based on other technologies might be 

developed and approved in the future, 

and thus would be unaffected by the 

installation of LED airport and runway 

lighting.26

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

27The FAA also added language to 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(viii) so persons who are otherwise 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations under other 

operating rules (i.e. subpart K of part 91 and parts 

121, 125, 129, and 135) do not have to obtain an 

LOA to conduct part 91 operations such as ferry 

flights. 

28For an aircraft to be eligible for an experimental 

certificate the aircraft must be registered and the 

applicant must satisfy one or more of the purposes 

stated in 14 CFR 21.191. Pursuant to § 21.193, 

applicants for experimental certificates must submit 

certain information with an application for 

airworthiness certification. This information is 

referred to as the ‘‘program letter.’’ The FAA uses 

the program letter to assist in establishing eligibility 

for an experimental certificate. The program letter 

must contain the required items listed in § 21.193 

and be detailed enough to permit the FAA to 

prescribe the conditions and limitations necessary 

to ensure safe operation of the aircraft. 

‘‘Airworthiness Certification of Products and 

Articles,’’ Order 8130.2H (Feb. 4, 2015). 

29A person serving as a required flightcrew 

member of a foreign registered aircraft conducting 

operations under part 91 is not required to obtain 

an LOA in order to conduct EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE because § 91.176(b)(2) does not 

require part 91 operators, other than those operating 

under part 91 subpart K, to obtain FAA 

authorization to conduct EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE. 

Furthermore, the FAA does not 

mandate installation of specific lighting 

technologies. Airport operators decide 

what approved lighting technologies 

they will install at their airport location, 

and incandescent and LED airport 

lighting technologies both meet the 

requirements of § 139.311, ‘‘Marking, 

signs, and lighting.’’ Lighting 

technology manufacturers have 

significantly reduced the availability of 

traditional incandescent lighting 

technology for airport applications as a 

result of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act. 

e. LOA Requirement for Part 91 

Operators To Conduct EFVS Operations 

to Touchdown and Rollout 

Section 91.176(a)(2)(viii) requires a 

person conducting EFVS operations 

under part 91 to conduct the operation 

in accordance with an LOA unless the 

operation is conducted under subpart K 

of part 91, or conducted in an aircraft 

that has been issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 for the 

purpose of research and development or 

showing compliance with regulations.27

This slightly differs from what was 

proposed in the NPRM, in that the FAA 

did not propose to provide an exception 

from the LOA requirement for EFVS 

operations conducted under part 91 in 

aircraft issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 for the 

purpose of research and development or 

showing compliance with regulations. 

Three commenters expressed 

concerns about requiring an LOA for 

part 91 operators to conduct EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout. 

An individual commented that 

requiring part 91 operators to obtain an 

LOA is an unnecessary regulatory 

requirement; however, he supported the 

FAA’s proposal to require training and 

recent flight experience for EFVS 

operations. Central Management 

Services and an individual commented 

that pilots with a demonstrated history 

of EFVS training and currency should 

not be required to obtain an LOA and 

should be ‘‘grandfathered’’ under the 

new EFVS regulation. Central 

Management Services further stated that 

only pilots new to EFVS technology and 

equipment should be required to obtain 

an LOA. Central Management Services 

and an individual contended that there 

is precedence for ‘‘grandfathering’’ 

pilots with previous experience and 

pointed to those paragraphs in § 61.31 

pertaining to pilots who had previous 

experience operating pressurized 

aircraft above 25,000 feet and pilots who 

had previous tailwheel experience. HAI, 

Central Management Services, and an 

individual expressed concern about the 

length of time it generally takes the FAA 

to issue an LOA. 

Because of the performance-based 

structure of the EFVS regulations under 

§ 91.176(a), the FAA finds it necessary 

to require part 91 operators, other than 

those conducting operations under part 

91 subpart K or in an aircraft that has 

been issued an experimental certificate 

under § 21.191 for the purpose of 

research and development or showing 

compliance with regulations, to obtain 

an LOA to conduct EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. The FAA has 

written § 91.176(a) in a way that is 

performance-based rather than 

explicitly specifying visibilities or other 

EFVS operating conditions and 

limitations in rule language. The FAA 

has structured the regulations so that it 

can manage the operating conditions 

and limitations for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout through an 

operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA. The 

FAA specifically structured the EFVS 

regulations this way to provide 

flexibility and to enable the FAA to 

structure an operator’s authorization in 

a way that links equipage and system 

performance to specific operational 

capabilities. This structure also enables 

the FAA to respond more rapidly to new 

technology. Rather than restricting the 

use of all EFVS to a rigid and limiting 

set of visibility values and operating 

conditions and limitations, the FAA can 

permit a range of EFVS operations as 

vision system technologies and 

appropriate equipment certification 

guidance are developed. The FAA 

believes this structure best 

accommodates future growth while 

eliminating the need for additional 

rulemaking. Lastly, the FAA 

acknowledges the commenters’ 

concerns about the length of time it 

generally takes to issue an LOA. The 

FAA notes that every effort is made to 

process applications in a timely manner. 

The FAA notes that § 91.176(a)(2)(viii) 

now excepts EFVS operations 

conducted under part 91 in aircraft 

issued an experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191 for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations from the requirement 

to obtain an LOA. These operations 

typically consist of a series of flights 

conducted to collect data or show 

compliance with regulations during 

EFVS certification activities using 

aircraft that have been placed in the 

experimental category. The flights are 

authorized when the FAA approves the 

program letter 28 describing the flight 

operations to be conducted and issues 

the experimental certificate with 

operating limitations. The FAA 

authorization is time-limited and carries 

an expiration date. Because these 

operations require FAA-approval, are 

time-limited, and carry operating 

limitations specific to the flights to be 

conducted, an LOA to conduct these 

operations is not required. 

f. EFVS Operations Outside the U.S.29

Pursuant to § 91.176(a)(2)(x) and 

(b)(2)(viii), any person serving as a 

required flightcrew member for a foreign 

air carrier subject to part 129 must 

conduct both EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout and EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

in accordance with OpSpecs authorizing 

the use of EFVS. The appropriate 

International Field Office (IFO) is 

responsible for authorizing part 129 

foreign air carriers for EFVS operations. 

AC 90–106A contains additional 

information for EFVS operations 

conducted by foreign air carriers in the 

United States. 

Part 91 operators (other than part 91, 

subpart K operators, who are required to 

obtain an MSpec under 

§ 91.176(b)(2)(vii)) are not required to 

obtain an LOA in order to conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

under § 91.176(b). Verizon conducts 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE under part 91 in the United States 

and pointed out that the rules for EFVS 

operations to 100 feet already in effect 

do not contain a provision for issuing an 

LOA to a part 91 operator. Verizon 

commented that, because it does not 

have an LOA, it has been unable to 

obtain approval from a foreign CAA to 

conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90141 

30A combined vision system involves a 

combination of SVS and EVS or EFVS. See AC No. 

20–167A, Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced 

Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined 

Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System 

Equipment. 

above the TDZE in the foreign country. 

As a result, it has been unable to use 

EFVS on its Gulfstream fleet for 

operational benefit outside of the United 

States. Verizon requested that the FAA 

revise § 91.176(b) to make provision for 

issuing an LOA to part 91 operators to 

facilitate approval by foreign CAAs. 

The FAA is not revising § 91.176(b) as 

the commenter suggested. Part 91 

operators have been authorized to 

conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE in the United States 

without an LOA for over 12 years. 

However, the FAA is aware that certain 

foreign CAAs require an authorization 

from the State of the operator in order 

to obtain approval to conduct EFVS 

operations in that country. The FAA is 

developing a process to facilitate foreign 

CAA approval for part 91 operators. AC 

90–106A contains additional 

information about international EFVS 

operations. 

g. EFVS Authorizations 

Section 91.176(a) contains the 

regulations for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout, and § 91.176(b) 

contains the regulations for EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

Under § 91.176(a)(2)(viii)–(xii), 

operators must obtain an LOA, MSpec, 

or OpSpec authorizing the use of EFVS 

in order to conduct EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. Similarly, 

under § 91.176(b)(2)(vii)–(x), operators, 

except for part 91 operators (other than 

part 91, subpart K operators) must 

obtain an LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec 

authorizing the use of EFVS in order to 

conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. Thales asked the FAA 

to clarify whether it will issue 

authorizations for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout separately from 

authorizations for EFVS to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. Thales also asked 

whether authorizations for EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

will include EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE. Lastly, Thales asked if 

operators who are currently authorized 

to conduct operations under § 91.175(l) 

and (m) will have to reapply for 

authorization to conduct EFVS 

operations under new § 91.176. 

The FAA will issue separate 

authorizations for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout and EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

Operators who are currently authorized 

to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE, who wish to conduct 

additional operations now permitted 

under this rule, may do so only if those 

operations are authorized by their 

OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS 

operations. 

Operators currently conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

may continue to conduct those 

operations under their existing 

authorization until the FAA revises the 

operator’s authorization to conform to 

the applicable provisions of the EFVS 

final rule. Lastly, AC 90–106A, Section 

10, ‘‘Operational Approval Process for 

EFVS Operations,’’ provides guidance 

on the operational approval process and 

obtaining authorizations for EFVS 

operations. 

h. EFVS for Takeoff Operations 

FedEx Express, Gulfstream, Dassault 

Aviation, Elbit Systems of America, and 

Sierra Nevada Corporation commented 

that the FAA’s notice did not address 

takeoff credit for EFVS. They noted that 

the FAA referenced existing processes 

through which takeoff credit for EFVS 

could be approved and requested that 

the FAA clarify those processes. In 

addition, Dassault Aviation requested 

that the FAA address when it plans to 

develop operational requirements and 

associated guidance material for takeoff 

using EFVS. 

The FAA did not propose to enable 

the use of EFVS during takeoff 

operations because it may already 

authorize these operations through 

existing processes under § 91.175(f), 

which prescribes civil airport takeoff 

minimums for persons conducting 

operations under part 121, 125, 129, or 

135. Under § 91.175(f), a person 

conducting operations under part 121, 

125, 129, or 135 may obtain an 

authorization from the FAA, such as an 

OpSpec or LOA, authorizing lower than 

standard takeoff minimums, which may 

include the use of EFVS. The 

regulations, however, do not prescribe 

any takeoff minimums for part 91 

operators (other than part 91, subpart K 

operators which under § 91.1039(e) have 

a minimum takeoff visibility of 600 

feet). Therefore, part 91 operators (other 

than part 91, subpart K operators) may 

conduct takeoff operations using EFVS 

without obtaining an authorization from 

the FAA to conduct such operations. 

It has come to the FAA’s attention, 

however, that there is no existing 

process under the regulations for part 

91, subpart K operators to obtain an 

authorization from the FAA to conduct 

takeoff operations using EFVS when the 

visibility is less than 600 feet. The FAA 

is therefore amending § 91.1039(e) to 

permit part 91, subpart K operators to 

conduct takeoff operations using EFVS 

when the visibility is less than 600 feet, 

provided these operations are 

conducted in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s MSpec for EFVS 

operations. 

The FAA is aware of the need for 

operational guidance regarding the use 

of EFVS during takeoff operations and is 

currently working to develop it. 

i. Combined Vision Systems 

A couple of commenters raised 

concerns about the use of synthetic 

vision. The HAI commented that 

§ 91.176 and AC 90–106A should 

address the use of synthetic vision, 

when combined with an EVS that uses 

a real-time sensor image and 

appropriate flight information. Rockwell 

Collins commented that there are future 

technologies that could provide a realtime image of the external scene 

topography, which may be based on a 

database or communicated position 

information. It further commented that 

while these technologies may be 

considered combined vision system 

(CVS) applications,30 the lines between 

enhanced vision, synthetic vision, and 

combined vision may become even less 

defined over time. Rockwell Collins 

suggested that only synthetic vision 

systems which exclusively use a 

computer-generated image of the 

external scene topography should not be 

addressed by the operational 

requirements in this rule. Furthermore, 

Eurocopter and American Eurocopter 

commented that the FAA should clarify 

whether a person could use CVS as an 

EFVS provided the CVS satisfied part 

91’s requirements. 

The FAA disagrees that § 91.176 

should address the use of synthetic 

vision. The amendments to part 91 

address new operational benefits and 

requirements for EFVS only. However, a 

CVS consisting of an enhanced flight 

vision system and synthetic vision 

could be approved for EFVS operations 

if it met all of the requirements of the 

EFVS regulations. 

j. Use of the Term ‘‘EFVS’’ in Rule 

Language 

Garmin International commented that 

the proposed rule language 

unnecessarily references EFVS. It 

pointed out that in the future, part 91 

might be updated to include additional 

technologies. Removing references to 

EFVS, and using only references to 

§ 91.176, would eliminate the necessity 

for future revisions of the regulations. 

The FAA disagrees with Garmin. The 

FAA is retaining the references to EFVS 

in the rule language because the rule is 

intended to address new operational 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

31FSBs make findings of operational suitability 

and recommend master training, checking, and 

currency requirements applicable to aircraft and 

equipment. 

benefits and requirements for EFVS; it is 

not intended to address other systems 

that do not meet requirements 

applicable to EFVS. 

k. Approach Plates and EFVS 

Operations 

Under § 91.176(a), EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout may be 

conducted at any airport below the 

authorized DA/DH. Under § 91.176(b), 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE may be conducted at any airport 

below the authorized DA/DH or MDA to 

100 feet above the TDZE. Additionally, 

EFVS operations using circling 

minimums are not authorized pursuant 

to § 91.176(a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i). 

The Aerospace Medical Association 

commented that an EFVS approach 

plate should be developed that specifies 

the procedure, equipment requirements, 

and visibility required to conduct EFVS 

operations. The FAA disagrees because 

persons may conduct EFVS operations 

on any instrument approach procedure 

that meets the criteria specified above. 

Therefore, an approach plate 

specifically for EFVS operations is not 

necessary. 

The Aerospace Medical Association 

also asked whether the FAA will issue 

a special rating for pilots who conduct 

EFVS operations. The commenter stated 

that minimum qualification and 

experience should be required for pilots 

to perform EFVS operations. It pointed 

out that most airlines only permit 

captains to fly very low visibility 

takeoffs and instrument landing system 

(ILS) Category IIIB landings and that 

first officers must also have the same 

training. 

The FAA will not issue a special 

rating to pilots for EFVS operations. 

Instead, the FAA is establishing ground 

and flight training requirements for 

EFVS operations in § 61.66(a), (b), and 

(c), and recent flight experience and 

refresher training requirements for EFVS 

operations in § 61.66(d) and (e). The 

FAA believes that the training, recent 

flight experience, and refresher training 

requirements of § 61.66 are sufficient to 

ensure safe operations and that a special 

rating for pilots who conduct EFVS 

operations is unnecessary. Furthermore, 

Flight Standardization Board (FSB) 

reports pertaining to specific EFVS and 

aircraft installations have not specified 

that pilot ratings for EFVS operations 

are necessary.31

l. References to EFVS-Specific Callouts 

Airbus noted that the NPRM makes 

reference to ‘‘EFVS-specific callouts’’ 

but does not provide a precise definition 

of the term. Airbus requested that the 

FAA clarify where this term is defined 

in the proposed rule. 

The FAA does not define the term 

‘‘EFVS-specific callouts.’’ The FAA used 

this term twice in the NPRM to describe 

callouts, such as ‘‘EFVS lights,’’ which 

are unique to EFVS operations. 

Operators may develop other EFVSspecific callouts related to crew 

coordination activities during EFVS 

operations. 

m. Miscellaneous Revisions to EFVS 

Operating Requirements 

Sierra Nevada Corporation 

commented that proposed 

§ 91.176(a)(3), which stated, ‘‘No pilot 

operating under this section or 

§§ 121.651, 125.381, and 135.225 . . .’’ 

should be changed to state, ‘‘No pilot 

operating under this section or 

§§ 121.651, 125.381, or 135.225 . . .’’ It 

also commented that the FAA should 

make a similar change to proposed 

§ 91.176(b)(3) and that the FAA should 

delete the words ‘‘and land’’ from 

§ 91.176(b)(3) because, under 

§ 91.176(b), a pilot must land using 

natural vision and is not permitted to 

rely on EFVS to land. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter, 

and has revised ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ in 

§ 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) accordingly. 

However, the FAA disagrees with the 

commenter that it should remove ‘‘and 

land’’ from § 91.176(b)(3) because that 

section contains the visibility and visual 

reference requirements for using an 

EFVS to descend below DA/DH or MDA 

down to 100 feet above the TDZE and 

for using natural vision to descend 

below 100 feet above the TDZE to 

touchdown. 

n. Opposing Comments on the FAA’s 

Proposal 

One commenter opposed the 

proposal. A private individual 

commented that the notice proposes a 

set of rules that are technically 

ambiguous, does not provide adequate 

safety for air carrier operations, favors 

one technology over other methods and 

technologies the commenter considers 

to be better and safer, and is 

unnecessary to achieve the intended 

benefits. The commenter believes that if 

these provisions are implemented they 

will not enhance safety or operability 

over competing and currently available 

technologies, and that the proposal 

could result in additional and 

unnecessary safety vulnerability. 

The commenter stated that IR-based 

systems cannot penetrate certain fog 

conditions necessary for safe flight 

below a 100-foot height above 

touchdown (HAT) and that certain radar 

systems, while potentially able to 

marginally penetrate fog, have other 

severe resolution limitations. The 

commenter believes that picture based 

systems can provide little more than 

situational awareness and do not 

provide adequate closed loop flight 

control capability for missions requiring 

air carrier levels of accuracy, integrity, 

and availability. The commenter 

asserted that this is why UAVs still 

routinely crash when flying based on 

visual control, even with high quality 

visibility systems. The commenter 

further asserted that if path definition 

and flight guidance are available, the 

visual scene becomes unnecessary and 

is only an aid to situational awareness. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter and believes that this final 

rule provides an adequate level of safety 

for EFVS operations. EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE have been 

conducted for over 12 years. The FAA 

is not aware of any accidents over this 

time period in which EFVS was a factor. 

This final rule extends these operations 

to include EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout and to permit 

operators using EFVS-equipped aircraft 

to dispatch, release, or takeoff under 

IFR, and to initiate and continue an 

approach, when the destination airport 

weather is below authorized visibility 

minimums for the runway of intended 

landing. This final rule also provides 

specific equipment, operational, and 

visibility and visual reference 

requirements for the conduct of EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

and EFVS operations to 100 feet above 

the TDZE. Additionally, this final rule 

includes detailed and specific ground 

and flight training requirements, and 

recent flight experience and proficiency 

requirements for pilots intending to 

conduct EFVS operations. It also 

provides updated requirements for pilot 

compartment view and equipment for 

EFVS. Authorizations to conduct EFVS 

operations will contain operating 

conditions and limitations appropriate 

to the EFVS operations to be conducted 

and may prescribe additional 

equipment, operational, and visibility 

and visual reference requirements to 

account for specific equipment 

characteristics, operational procedures, 

or approach characteristics. The 

authorizations to conduct the additional 

EFVS operations as well as the new 

training, recent flight experience, and 

proficiency requirements are 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90143 

32Regardless of whether an operator is 

conducting an EFVS operation under § 91.176(a) or 

(b), the pilot must determine that the enhanced 

flight visibility observed by use of the EFVS is not 

less than the visibility prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure. 14 CFR 91.176(a)(3)(i) and 

(b)(3)(i). 

33Section 91.175(l)(2) previously contained this 

requirement. 

specifically intended to address the 

operating conditions and limitations 

necessary to ensure the safe conduct of 

all EFVS operations. The FAA’s 

disposition of Boeing’s comment in 

Section III.F further discusses this 

matter. 

The commenter also contended that 

the notice was unfair and prejudiced 

and showed unjustified favoritism for 

one technology (EFVS, EVS, or SVS) 

over better and safer competing 

technologies, such as Autoland, Flight 

Guidance based HDDs, or Flight 

Guidance based HUDs, that are already 

adequately and fairly treated by current 

regulations and guidance. As an 

example, the commenter stated there is 

no safety case justification for crediting 

EFVS, without also crediting the far 

safer AUTOLAND LAND III and LAND 

II Modes, as well as HUD AIII modes, 

for flight release or dispatch credit, as 

well as for approach initiation or 

alternate minimums credit. The 

commenter believes that this rule will 

expose the FAA to significant legal 

challenges by OEMs and operators with 

far better and safer systems that are not 

being offered equivalent or better 

benefits. 

It is not the intent of the FAA to 

provide an unfair advantage to one 

specific technology, but rather to 

address the conduct of EFVS operations 

in this rule. Other operations were not 

the subject of the proposal. The FAA 

notes, however, that the regulations 

have permitted operators to conduct 

Category III operations to dispatch, 

flight release, or takeoff under IFR and 

initiate and continue an approach in 

lower than standard visibility 

conditions for many years. The FAA is 

structuring similar dispatch, flight 

release, and approach initiation benefits 

for EFVS operations in lower than 

standard visibility conditions within the 

performance limitations of the EFVS 

equipment to be used. 

3. Visibility and Visual Reference 

Requirements 

a. Visual References Below 100 Feet 

Above the TDZE During EFVS 

Operations to Touchdown and Rollout 

Under § 91.176(a)(3)(i), a pilot 

conducting an EFVS operation to 

touchdown and rollout may not operate 

an aircraft below the authorized DA/DH 

and land unless that pilot determines 

that the enhanced flight visibility 

provided by an EFVS is not less than the 

visibility prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure being used. 

Additionally, § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) permits 

a pilot to continue descending below 

100 feet above the TDZE and land using 

the enhanced flight visibility provided 

by an EFVS, provided one of the 

following visual references is distinctly 

visible and identifiable to the pilot: The 

runway threshold, the lights or 

markings of the threshold, the runway 

touchdown zone landing surface, or the 

lights or markings of the touchdown 

zone. The requirement remains 

unchanged from the NPRM. 

Thales commented that 

§ 91.176(a)(3)(iii) as proposed would 

have permitted a pilot to use only 

enhanced flight visibility provided by 

an EFVS to identify the required visual 

references at and below 100 feet above 

the TDZE. Thales stated that it is 

possible a pilot could see the required 

visual references with natural vision, 

but not with enhanced flight visibility. 

Thales recommended that 

§ 91.176(a)(3)(iii) permit a pilot to use 

either enhanced flight visibility 

provided by an EFVS or natural vision 

to identify the required visual references 

to descend below 100 feet above the 

TDZE. It asserted that conducting a 

missed approach when a pilot sees the 

required visual references with natural 

vision, but not with enhanced flight 

visibility provided by an EFVS, would 

be unnecessary and counterproductive. 

The FAA disagrees with Thales that 

§ 91.176(a)(3)(iii) should also allow the 

use of natural vision to identify the 

required visual references to descend 

below 100 feet above the TDZE. If 

visibility conditions improve after a 

pilot begins an EFVS operation, whether 

it is conducted under § 91.176(a) or (b), 

that pilot may continue descending to a 

landing using natural vision provided 

he or she continues the flight in 

accordance with existing flight rules 

based on natural vision, with existing 

requirements under § 91.175(c) for 

operation below DA/DH or MDA, or 

with existing requirements under 

§ 91.176(b) for descending below 100 

feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, if an 

operator were conducting an EFVS 

operation to touchdown and rollout 

under § 91.176(a), and could acquire the 

visual references with natural vision at 

100 feet above the TDZE, that operator 

would not have to conduct a missed 

approach as Thales suggested so long as 

the operator complies with the flight 

rules based on natural vision, 

§ 91.175(c), or § 91.176(b).32 In order to 

continue descending below 100 feet 

above the TDZE under 

§ 91.176(b)(3)(iii), however, the pilot 

conducting the EFVS operation must 

meet the training requirements to 

conduct operations under § 91.176(b). 

The FAA anticipates that the majority of 

operators conducting EFVS operations 

will be authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations under both § 91.176(a) and 

(b). 

During an EFVS operation to 

touchdown and rollout, the pilot must 

comply with both paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

and (a)(3)(iii) at 100 feet above the TDZE 

of the runway of intended landing and 

below that altitude. Therefore, at 100 

feet above the TDZE and below that 

altitude, the enhanced flight visibility 

provided by an EFVS may not be less 

than the visibility prescribed in the IAP 

being used. Additionally, the enhanced 

flight visibility using EFVS must be 

sufficient for one of the visual 

references in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to be 

distinctly visible and identifiable to the 

pilot. The only exceptions to these 

requirements would be when visibility 

improves such that a pilot could 

continue descending to a landing under 

the conditions described in the previous 

paragraph. 

b. Enhanced Flight Visibility 

Requirement During EFVS Operations to 

100 Feet Above the TDZE 

Under § 91.176(b)(3)(i), in order for a 

pilot to continue an approach below the 

authorized MDA or DA/DH and land, 

the pilot must determine that the 

enhanced flight visibility observed by 

use of an EFVS is not less than the 

visibility prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure being used. This 

requirement differs from what the FAA 

proposed because it applies from 

descent below MDA or DA/DH until 

touchdown,33 rather than to the portion 

of the approach from the authorized 

MDA or DA/DH to 100 feet above the 

TDZE, as proposed. This change 

resulted from our own continued review 

of the NPRM. 

In the NPRM, the FAA explained that 

the requirements of § 91.176(b)(3)(iii) 

would be structured to conform to the 

original intent of § 91.175(l)(4). 

However, in clarifying the requirements 

of § 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4), the FAA 

inadvertently proposed a requirement in 

§ 91.176(b)(3)(i) that was contrary to the 

original intent of § 91.175(l)(2) and 

(l)(4). In the 2004 EFVS rule, the FAA 

intended § 91.175(l)(2) to provide an 

enhanced flight visibility requirement 

equivalent to § 91.175(c)(2), except that 

the pilot could use an EFVS to 

determine ‘‘enhanced flight visibility’’ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

34Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, NPRM, 68 FR 

6802, 6805 (Feb. 10, 2003). 

35Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gary Thomey (Sept. 

10, 2010); see Takeoff and Landing Minimums, 46 

FR 2280, 2282 (Jan. 8 1981) (revising the 

requirement, then codified as § 91.116, to ‘‘make it 

clear that the pilot must have this flight visibility 

from descent below MDA or DH until touchdown’’). 

as compared to ‘‘flight visibility’’ with 

natural vision.34 Additionally, the FAA 

intended § 91.175(l)(4) to require that, in 

addition to determining that the 

enhanced flight visibility is not less 

than that prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure being used, at 100 

feet above the TDZE and below, one of 

the required visual references would 

have to be distinctly visible and 

identifiable without relying on the EFVS 

for the pilot to continue to a landing. 

As evidenced from a legal 

interpretation dated September 10, 

2010, the pilot must maintain the flight 

visibility required in § 91.175(c)(2) from 

descent below MDA or DA/DH until 

touchdown.35 Because the FAA 

intended the requirements of 

§ 91.176(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(iii) to 

conform to the original intent of 

§ 91.175(l)(2) and (l)(4), and the original 

intent of § 91.175(l)(2) was to provide a 

requirement equivalent to § 91.175(c)(2), 

§ 91.176(b)(3)(i) now requires the pilot 

to maintain the enhanced flight 

visibility from descent below MDA or 

DA/DH until touchdown. Therefore, at 

100 feet above the TDZE and below, a 

pilot must meet the requirements of 

§ 91.176(b)(3)(i) and (iii) in order to 

continue to a landing. 

c. Visual References for Rollout 

As proposed in the NPRM, 

§ 91.176(a)(3) specifies visibility and 

visual reference requirements for EFVS 

operations below the authorized DA/DH 

and for EFVS operations below 100 feet 

above the TDZE. A couple of 

commenters raised concerns regarding 

the lack of visibility and visual 

reference requirements for rollout 

during an EFVS operation. Thales 

proposed that the FAA either clarify the 

rollout requirements or add visibility 

and visual reference requirements to the 

regulations. Sierra Nevada Corporation 

contended that the required visual 

references specified in § 91.176(a)(3)(iii) 

are typically behind the aircraft by the 

time the aircraft slows to a safe taxi 

speed. It asserted that the FAA should 

specify an additional set of visual 

references for rollout, such as those in 

RTCA DO–341, Section 3.1.3.4, which 

includes visual references for rollout, 

such as the centerline lights or markings 

and the runway edge lights or markings, 

if installed and serviceable, or other 

visual references which accurately 

indicate the runway edges and the 

runway centerline. 

The FAA finds it unnecessary to 

specify visual references for rollout by 

regulation because the operating rules 

require sufficient forward visibility in 

order to conduct EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout, and an 

applicant must demonstrate that the 

EFVS can safely perform the rollout task 

during the equipment certification 

process. Under § 91.176(a), a pilot must 

determine that the enhanced flight 

visibility observed by using an EFVS is 

not less than what is prescribed in the 

IAP before descending below DA/DH to 

touchdown. This requirement in 

addition to the visibility and visual 

reference requirements specified in 

§ 91.176(a)(3) ensures that sufficient 

forward visibility exists for the pilot to 

safely conduct the approach, landing, 

and rollout. Furthermore, during the 

certification flight test, an applicant will 

have to demonstrate that he or she can 

use the EFVS to safely perform rollout 

tasks. Additionally, the FAA may 

include visibility and visual reference 

requirements for rollout in an operator’s 

authorization to conduct EFVS 

operations, if necessary. The FAA notes 

that AC 20–167A provides a means of 

compliance for an EFVS to obtain 

airworthiness approval and contains 

guidance applicable to the evaluation of 

EFVS performance during rollout to a 

safe taxi speed. 

d. Controlling Runway Visual Range 

(RVR) Values 

Section 91.176 does not specify which 

runway visual range (RVR) values are 

controlling for operational purposes. 

Therefore, Dassault Aviation asked the 

FAA to clarify whether the touchdown 

zone, mid, or rollout RVR is controlling 

when more than one RVR value is 

provided for the runway of intended 

landing. The FAA will specify which 

RVR values are controlling for 

operational purposes in an operator’s 

OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for EFVS 

operations. The FAA is also providing 

guidance on this topic in AC 90–106A. 

e. Emitter Technologies as Alternative 

Visual Aids 

An individual commented that the 

NPRM addresses EFVS operations in a 

performance-based manner but provides 

no performance-based equivalent for 

light components. The commenter 

stated that emitters of various types that 

might be interoperable with EFVS 

sensor technologies could be 

implemented as an alternative or 

supplement to traditional lighting 

systems or visual aid components. The 

commenter further stated that emitters 

of this type could be useful in 

conditions of below Category II weather 

or used in locations where approach 

lighting systems are not possible, such 

as when an airport is surrounded by 

water. The commenter recommended 

that the FAA revise the visual reference 

language in § 91.176 to permit the use 

of emitter technologies in addition to 

the visual references currently specified. 

While emitters that might be 

interoperable with EFVS sensor 

technologies could be implemented as 

an alternative or supplement to 

traditional lighting systems or visual aid 

components, specifying a performance 

based equivalent for light components is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA notes, however, that 

§§ 91.176(a)(3) and (b)(3) do not prohibit 

the use of emitter technologies to 

facilitate the identification of the 

required visual references. 

f. Use of EFVS To Satisfy the Visibility 

Requirements of §§ 91.155 and 91.157 

During Rotorcraft Operations 

HAI commented that the FAA should 

permit rotorcraft to use EFVS to provide 

the required visibility necessary to 

operate under §§ 91.155 and 91.157. The 

FAA is not adopting this suggestion 

because it is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. The FAA did not propose 

to permit such operations and others 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. 

D. Revisions to Requirements for EFVS 

Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE 

(§ 91.176(b)) 

1. Methods for Conducting Approaches 

During EFVS Operations to 100 Feet 

Above the TDZE 

Section 91.176(b) contains the 

regulations for EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE. These 

requirements were previously located in 

§ 91.175(l) and (m). A commenter noted 

that § 91.176(b) does not contain a 

regulatory requirement to use vertical 

guidance to fly a non-precision 

approach and that, upon meeting the 

visual reference requirements, a pilot 

could descend immediately and as 

rapidly as desired to 100 feet above the 

TDZE rather than descend along a 

vertically guided continuous descent 

profile. The commenter, therefore, 

recommended that § 91.176(b) restrict 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE to approaches that have approved 

vertical guidance. The commenter also 

noted that § 91.176 does not require 

descent along an obstacle-free path and 

that EFVS was not designed to detect 

obstacles, but it is important for a pilot 

to ensure that a descent is accomplished 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90145 

36 In the 2004 EFVS final rule, ‘‘Enhanced Flight 

Vision Systems,’’ 69 FR at 1625 (Jan. 9, 2004), the 

FAA explained that the obstacle risk for a nonprecision approach using EFVS is significantly 

mitigated by only permitting EFVS operations on 

straight-in approaches. The FAA further noted that 

a pilot could maintain obstacle clearance by using 

the recommended procedures to fly a straight-in 

instrument approach procedure with an MDA, and 

by using the FPV cue and FPARC displayed by the 

EFVS to monitor and maintain the desired vertical 

path when operating below the MDA. 

37As discussed in section III.E.2, § 61.66(e) 

clarifies the proficiency check requirements that 

were proposed in § 61.57(i). 

along a path known to be obstacle-free, 

such as by using another approach to 

the same runway that has a DA, or by 

using a VASI, PAPI, or other 

information. The commenter therefore 

recommended that proposed 

§ 91.176(b)(2)(iii) require the aircraft to 

be continuously in a position from 

which a descent to a landing on the 

intended runway can be made along an 

obstacle-free path at a normal rate of 

descent using normal maneuvers. 

Central Management Services shared 

similar concerns. It noted that, while it 

doubted any Part 141 or Part 142 facility 

advocated the ‘‘dive and drive’’ method 

for conducting straight-in, non-precision 

approaches, the EFVS rule does not 

prohibit it, and therefore recommended 

that the FAA do so in § 91.176. 

The FAA finds that these comments 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA did not propose these 

restrictions to § 91.176(b); therefore, 

other persons did not have an 

opportunity to comment. Additionally, 

persons have been conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

safely for over 12 years under § 91.175(l) 

and (m), which did not contain such 

restrictions.36 AC 90–106A provides 

guidance on how to safely conduct 

EFVS operations on approaches with an 

MDA using straight-in landing 

minimums. 

E. Training, Recent Flight Experience, 

and Refresher Training Requirements 

for Persons Conducting EFVS 

Operations (§ 61.66) 

The FAA has reorganized the pilot 

requirements proposed in §§ 61.31 and 

61.57 and consolidated them in new 

§ 61.66. Section 61.66 contains the 

EFVS ground and flight training 

requirements, which were proposed as 

§ 61.31(l), and the EFVS recent flight 

experience requirements, which were 

proposed as § 61.57(h) and (i).37 The 

FAA is consolidating the EFVS training 

requirements with the EFVS recent 

flight experience requirements into a 

single section for organizational clarity. 

The FAA believes that consolidating 

these requirements into a single new 

section in part 61, which is comprised 

solely of the EFVS pilot requirements, 

will help facilitate compliance with the 

regulations by making them more 

accessible and comprehensible to pilots. 

The FAA has also made modifications 

to these requirements as a result of 

comments and as a result of the FAA’s 

own continued review of the proposal, 

which this section will discuss in detail 

below. 

The following table outlines each 

requirement, its previously proposed 

section in the NPRM, its corresponding 

section in new § 61.66, and a summary 

of the significant changes from the 

proposal. 

Requirement NPRM Final rule Change from NPRM 

Ground Training ................... Proposed § 61.31(l)(1) ....... § 61.66(a)(1) ...................... Clarifies that a person must receive the ground training from an authorized training provider under an 

FAA approved training program. 

Clarifies that the EFVS ground training must be appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. 

Ground Training Subjects .... Proposed § 61.31(l)(2)(i)– 

(vii).

§ 61.66(a)(2)(i)–(viii) .......... Adds the following ground training subject: EFVS sensor imagery and required aircraft flight information 

and flight symbology. 

Flight Training ...................... Proposed § 61.31(l)(3) ....... § 61.66(b)(1) ...................... Clarifies that a person must receive the flight training 

from an authorized training provider under an FAA 

approved training program. 

Clarifies that the EFVS flight training must be provided 

in the category of aircraft for the EFVS operation to 

be conducted. 

Flight Training Tasks ........... Proposed § 61.31(l)(4)(i)– 

(viii).

§ 61.66(b)(2)(i)–(viii) .......... No significant changes from NPRM. 

Supplementary EFVS Training.Proposed § 61.31(l)(6) ....... § 61.66(c) ........................... Clarifies that supplementary EFVS training, previously 

proposed as differences training, consists of both 

ground and flight training. 

Clarifies that a person must receive supplemental 

EFVS training in the category of aircraft for the 

EFVS operation to be conducted. 

No longer permits a pilot to receive a proficiency 

check in lieu of supplementary EFVS training. 

Recent Flight Experience: 

EFVS.

Proposed § 61.57(h) .......... § 61.66(d) ........................... Clarifies that the EFVS recent flight experience requirements must be obtained in the category of aircraft for which the person is seeking the EFVS privilege. 

EFVS Refresher Training .... Proposed § 61.57(i) ........... § 61.66(e)(1) ...................... Calls the mechanism by which a person reestablishes 

EFVS currency a ‘‘refresher course’’ rather than a 

‘‘proficiency check.’’ 

Provides pilots with an additional 6 months to satisfy 

the EFVS recent flight experience requirements. 

Individuals who may conduct EFVS Refresher 

Training.

Proposed § 61.57(i)(2) ....... § 61.66(e)(2) ...................... Requires EFVS refresher training to be conducted by 

an authorized training provider. 

Military Pilots and Former 

Military Pilots in the U.S. 

Armed Forces.

............................................ § 61.66(f) ............................ Adds a new paragraph that specifically addresses military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. 

Armed Forces. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90146 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

38Under part 121 and part 135, the term ‘‘training 

program’’ is a broad term that encompasses all 

curriculums in the air carrier’s approved training 

program. Therefore, part 119 certificate holders 

operating under part 121 or part 135 would not 

have an EFVS training program; they would have 

an EFVS training curriculum as part of their 

approved training program. For purposes of part 

119 certificate holders operating under part 121 or 

part 135, the term ‘‘training program’’ in § 61.66 

means training curriculum. 

Requirement NPRM Final rule Change from NPRM 

Use of Full Flight Simulators 

(FFS).

Proposed § 61.31(l)(5) .......

Proposed § 61.57(h)(2) 

Proposed § 61.57(i) 

§ 61.66(g) ........................... Creates a new paragraph, which contains the requirements for using a FFS to meet the flight training, recent flight experience, and refresher training requirements. 

Clarifies that each FFS must be qualified and maintained in accordance with part 60, or be a previously qualified device, as permitted in accordance 

with § 60.17. 

Clarifies that each FFS must be approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers. 

Grandfather clause and 

compliance date for persons conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE.

Proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii) ... § 61.66(h)(4) § 91.176(b)(4) Creates two provisions for clarity. Section 61.66(h)(4) 

contains the grandfather clause, and § 91.176(b)(4) 

contains the compliance date. 

1. Training Requirements for Persons 

Conducting EFVS Operations 

(§ 61.66(a), (b) and (c)) 

Under § 61.66(a) and (b), no person 

may manipulate the controls of an 

aircraft or act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft during an EFVS operation as 

specified in § 91.176(a) or (b) unless that 

person has received and logged ground 

and flight training for the EFVS 

operation under a training program 38

approved by the Administrator and 

obtained a logbook or training record 

endorsement from an authorized 

training provider certifying that the 

person has satisfactorily completed the 

ground and flight training. Section 

61.66(a) also requires a person serving 

as a required pilot flightcrew member 

(who does not manipulate the controls) 

during an EFVS operation to touchdown 

and rollout to comply with the ground 

training requirements in paragraph (a). 

EFVS training must include ground 

training on the subjects set forth in 

§ 61.66(a)(2) and flight training on the 

tasks set forth in § 61.66(b)(2). 

Consistent with the proposal, under 

the final rule, the Administrator may 

approve a training program that 

includes ground and flight training for 

one EFVS operation (e.g., § 91.176(a) or 

(b)) or both EFVS operations (§ 91.176(a) 

and (b)). If a person receives training 

and an endorsement for only one EFVS 

operation in § 91.176, then seeks to 

conduct an additional EFVS operation 

for which that person has not received 

training, § 61.66(c) requires that person 

to receive ground and flight training and 

an endorsement appropriate to the 

additional EFVS operation to be 

conducted. AC 61–65 will contain 

sample endorsements for use by 

authorized training providers when 

endorsing logbooks or training records 

pursuant to § 61.66(a)(1), (b)(1) and 

(c)(2). 

The training requirements in new 

§ 61.66(a), (b), and (c) differ slightly 

from what was proposed in the NPRM 

as a result of comments and revisions, 

which are discussed in more detail 

below. 

a. Separate Training for EFVS 

Operations to 100 Feet Above the TDZE 

and EFVS Operations to Touchdown 

and Rollout 

Dassault Aviation commented that it 

favors separate training for EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

and for EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout. It also commented that 

training for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout should 

automatically include training for EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

The FAA will not require separate 

training programs for the two types of 

EFVS operations, nor will it require 

training for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout to automatically 

include training for EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA has 

adopted ground and flight training 

requirements with sufficient flexibility 

to achieve both the desired safety 

benefits and training efficiencies. While 

the rule does not require separate 

training for the two types of EFVS 

operations, the FAA notes that the 

training must address the operations the 

EFVS operator is authorized to conduct. 

Under certain circumstances, an 

operator authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

might find it necessary to conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

For example, if the pilot monitoring 

display is inoperative, the flightcrew 

may not conduct an EFVS operation to 

touchdown and rollout, but they may 

conduct an EFVS operation to 100 feet 

above the TDZE provided they meet all 

applicable regulatory requirements, 

including training to conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

Accordingly, an operator may elect for 

its pilots to receive training for both 

types of EFVS operations. 

b. EFVS and Aircraft-Specific Training 

A couple of commenters raised 

concerns about aircraft-specific EFVS 

training. GAMA commented that 

proposed § 61.31 should specifically 

enable a pilot who is trained in EFVS 

operations on one airplane model to be 

EFVS-qualified on multiple airplane 

types. GAMA noted that FAA FSBs have 

authorized pilots trained on one 

airplane model for EFVS to be EFVSqualified on another airplane, such as 

on the Falcon 900 and Falcon 2000. 

GAMA further noted that proposed 

§ 61.31 did not recognize the FSB credit 

that currently exists. 

Rockwell Collins commented that it 

assumed the training proposed by the 

FAA could be performed during 

ground/simulator training using a 

‘‘generic’’ aircraft type, given that initial 

EFVS training includes an introduction 

to EFVS image characteristics, such as 

infrared-based sensor imagery, 

determining EFVS-equivalent visibility, 

image artifacts, and other items. It asked 

whether training could carry over to 

multiple aircraft types with similar 

EFVS installations and noted that this 

could allow training companies to 

provide generic training packages. 

Section 61.66, proposed as § 61.31, 

does not reflect GAMA’s request 

because § 61.66(a) and (b) do not require 

a pilot to receive training on each 

specific combination of EFVS and 

aircraft model for which the pilot is 

qualified to fly. Accordingly, as 

Rockwell Collins requested, training 

obtained pursuant to § 61.66 may carry 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90147 

39Unless otherwise excepted in § 61.66(h), the 

training requirements in § 61.66(a), (b), and (c) 

apply to any pilot conducting EFVS operations 

under 14 CFR 91.176, including pilots conducting 

operations under part 91, part 91 subpart K, part 

121, part 125, or part 135. 

40However, based on the special rules in 

§ 125.296, a part 125 operator may not use a part 

141 pilot school to meet training, testing, or 

checking requirements under part 125. 

over to multiple aircraft types with 

similar EFVS installations. The intent of 

§ 61.66 is to establish minimum 

standards for a broad range of operators 

who may be operating various types of 

aircraft and EFVS equipment. The FAA 

has revised the language in § 61.66, 

however, to make clear that the training 

and endorsements for EFVS operations 

must be specific to category of aircraft. 

This requirement is consistent with the 

language proposed in § 61.57(i) 

requiring an EFVS proficiency check to 

be accomplished in the category of 

aircraft for the EFVS privilege sought. 

In addition to the training 

requirements of part 61, an operator 

must comply with any training 

requirements specified in the part under 

which the operator conducts operations. 

Additionally, an operator’s OpSpec, 

MSpec, or LOA for EFVS operations 

may contain specific training 

requirements. The FAA notes that this 

rule provides operators with the 

flexibility to develop training programs 

that address their specific operational 

requirements. Furthermore, for part 121, 

135, and 91 subpart K operators, the 

FAA requires that a pilot obtain training 

in the EFVS-equipped aircraft in which 

the pilot expects to conduct operations, 

and that an operator’s approved training 

program address training and 

proficiency for each specific 

combination of EFVS and aircraft model 

applicable to that operator and its EFVS 

operations. FSB reports also provide 

recommendations for training, checking, 

currency, recent flight experience, and 

special emphasis areas. 

c. Adaptation Period Prior to Using an 

EFVS in Flight Operations 

The Aerospace Medical Association 

commented that during B–787 training, 

one of their members experienced a 

habituation period when utilizing the 

HUD as a primary flight display and the 

instrument panel as secondary 

information. It believes the FAA should 

consider a similar habituation period for 

EFVS. The commenter stated that the 

habituation period should provide 

pilots with enough time to become 

accustomed to EFVS prior to flying solo 

or during actual instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC). It 

asserted that use of simulators should 

also be considered for training. 

The FAA believes that the time 

necessary to meet the EFVS training 

requirements will provide pilots with 

the necessary habituation period. 

Furthermore, § 61.66(g) already states 

that a pilot may use a level C or higher 

full flight simulator (FFS) equipped 

with a daylight visual display and an 

EFVS to meet the flight training 

requirements of § 61.66(b). 

Boeing commented that § 61.31(l) 

already exists and contains the 

exceptions to the requirement for a type 

rating. Boeing recommended that the 

FAA move the existing regulations in 

§ 61.31(l) to § 61.31(m) and use 

§ 61.31(l) for the proposed additional 

training required for EFVS operations. 

Boeing further stated that this will 

prevent having two different sections 

with the same number. This revision is 

unnecessary because the FAA is 

adopting new § 61.66 instead of 

proposed § 61.31. 

d. Revisions To Clarify Training 

Requirements in § 61.66(a), (b) and (c) 

Section 61.66(a), (b), and (c) now 

require pilots to receive EFVS ground, 

flight, and supplementary training from 

an ‘‘authorized training provider’’ under 

an FAA approved training program.39

The FAA is using the term ‘‘authorized 

training provider,’’ rather than 

‘‘authorized instructor’’ as proposed in 

the NPRM, to underscore that all EFVS 

training must be accomplished in 

accordance with an FAA approved 

training program under 14 CFR parts 91, 

91 subpart K, 121, 125, 135, 141, or 142. 

This revision is consistent with the 

NPRM, which explained that the FAA 

would require persons to receive EFVS 

training under an FAA approved 

training program to ensure that pilots 

are trained and tested to a specific 

standard and that the training program 

content supports the EFVS operation to 

be conducted. Because the proposed 

rule always intended for EFVS training 

to take place under an approved training 

program, the only authorized instructors 

would be those instructors working for 

training providers with approved 

training programs, such as instructors 

employed by part 141 pilot schools, part 

142 training centers, and part 119 

certificate holders. 

While an FAA approved training 

program is not required under part 125, 

§ 61.66 requires a part 125 operator to 

accomplish EFVS training in accordance 

with an FAA approved training 

program. A part 125 operator may 

accomplish § 61.66 EFVS training in 

accordance with an FAA approved 

training program offered at a part 141 

pilot school or a part 142 training 

center.40 Alternatively, a part 125 

operator may submit an EFVS training 

program to the FAA for approval. 

Under part 141, the FAA may approve 

an EFVS training course in accordance 

with § 141.11 and appendix K to part 

141, paragraph 9, Special Operations 

Course, which contains the minimum 

curriculum requirements for both 

aeronautical knowledge and flight 

training pertaining to special operations 

courses. A special operations course for 

EFVS must also meet the applicable 

parts of FAA regulations that pertain to 

that special operations course. 

Accordingly, an EFVS training course 

must meet the requirements of § 61.66 

in addition to the minimum curriculum 

requirements in appendix K to part 141. 

Because training programs already 

exist for persons conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, 

there is already a cadre of training 

instructors qualified to administer 

training on the subjects and tasks set 

forth in § 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) that are 

applicable to EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE. 

As a result of this final rule, new 

training programs for EFVS operations 

to touchdown and rollout will be 

developed. Section 61.66 requires 

persons to obtain EFVS training from an 

authorized training provider under an 

FAA approved training program. 

However, before persons can receive 

training on EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout from an 

authorized training provider, there must 

first be a cadre of training instructors 

qualified and authorized to administer 

the training. The FAA recognizes that 

there will be an initial period when 

training providers may provide training 

and evaluation without meeting certain 

qualification requirements in order to 

establish an initial cadre of instructors. 

AC 90–106A contains the FAA’s policy 

for initiating and building a cadre of 

authorized training instructors qualified 

to administer training on EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout. 

The FAA added language to 

§ 61.66(a)(1) and (b)(1) to make clear 

that the ground and flight training for 

EFVS operations, and the respective 

endorsements, must be specific to the 

category of aircraft for which the person 

is seeking the EFVS privilege. It has 

always been the FAA’s intent to require 

the EFVS training to be category 

specific. This requirement is consistent 

with the language proposed in § 61.57(i) 

requiring an EFVS proficiency check to 

be accomplished in the category of 

aircraft for the EFVS privilege sought. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

41 In the NPRM, the FAA described the additional 

EFVS training requirements in proposed 

§ 61.31(l)(6) as differences training. Upon further 

reflection, the FAA has decided not to use the term 

‘‘differences training’’ because it is a term of art 

used by air carriers, which may cause confusion in 

the context of additional EFVS training. Under part 

121 subpart N and part 135 subpart H, differences 

training is required if a flightcrew member will 

serve on a variation of a particular aircraft type that 

has pertinent differences from the base aircraft type. 

To avoid confusion, the FAA is describing the 

additional EFVS training requirements as 

‘‘supplementary EFVS training.’’ 

42 ‘‘Revisions to Operational Requirements for the 

Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and 

to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision 

Systems.’’ 78 FR at 34943 (June 11, 2013). 

43These rulemaking actions include the final 

rules ‘‘Pilot Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier Operations,’’ 78 FR 

42374 (Jul. 15, 2013), ‘‘Certified Flight Instructor 

Flight Reviews; Recent Pilot in Command 

Experience; Airmen Online Services,’’ 78 FR 56828 

(Sept. 16, 2013), and ‘‘Qualification, Service, and 

Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,’’ 78 

FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013). 

The FAA is reorganizing the 

supplementary EFVS training 

requirements in § 61.66(c) (proposed as 

differences training) to be more 

consistent with § 61.66(a) and (b).41

Accordingly, § 61.66(c)(1) requires a 

person to receive and log the ground 

and flight training specified in § 61.66(a) 

and (b) under an FAA approved training 

program appropriate to the EFVS 

operation to be conducted, and 

§ 61.66(c)(2) requires that person to 

obtain a logbook or training record 

endorsement from an authorized 

training provider certifying the person is 

proficient in the use of EFVS for the 

EFVS operations to be conducted. These 

revisions are consistent with proposed 

§ 61.31(l)(6)(i), which would have 

required the person to obtain the flight 

training and endorsement specified in 

§ 61.66(b) appropriate to the additional 

EFVS operations to be conducted. 

The FAA is requiring the 

supplemental EFVS training in 

§ 61.66(c) to consist of ground and flight 

training on the subjects and tasks 

specified in (a)(2) and (b)(2) appropriate 

to the additional EFVS operation to be 

conducted, as opposed to only flight 

training which was what the NPRM 

proposed in § 61.31(l)(6). This change to 

the regulatory text is consistent with the 

discussion in the NPRM,42 where the 

FAA explained that a pilot trained to 

conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE would not be required 

to complete the full training program 

applicable to EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout if he or she later 

decided to conduct EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. Instead, he or 

she would be required to complete only 

that portion of the full training program 

addressing the differences between the 

two operations. A full training program 

consists of both ground and flight 

training. The FAA therefore intended 

the supplemental EFVS training to 

consist of both ground and flight 

training. The FAA inadvertently omitted 

ground training, however, in its 

proposed regulatory text. The FAA is 

adding ground training to § 61.66(c) to 

clarify that supplemental EFVS training 

includes ground training on the subjects 

specified in § 61.66(a)(2) in addition to 

flight training on the tasks specified in 

§ 61.66(b)(2) appropriate to the 

additional EFVS operation to be 

conducted. 

The FAA is also requiring the 

supplemental EFVS training to be 

specific to the category of aircraft for 

which the person is seeking the EFVS 

privilege, which is consistent with the 

training requirements in § 61.66(a) and 

(b) and with the recent flight experience 

and refresher training requirements in 

§ 61.66(d) and (e). 

The FAA is not permitting a person to 

receive a proficiency check in lieu of the 

supplemental EFVS training, as 

originally proposed in § 61.31(l)(6)(ii). 

Nor is the FAA permitting a person to 

receive a proficiency check in lieu of the 

initial ground and flight training, as 

originally proposed in § 61.31(l)(7). The 

FAA is not adopting these proposed 

proficiency checks because they cannot 

be applied as a practical matter and they 

are inconsistent with the FAA’s reasons 

for establishing EFVS training 

requirements. During a proficiency 

check, a pilot must satisfactorily 

perform certain flight tasks. Prior to 

being checked on the flight tasks, a pilot 

must first receive training on the flight 

tasks. It is therefore impractical to 

permit a proficiency check on the tasks 

listed in § 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of initial 

training on those tasks. Furthermore, as 

explained in the NPRM, the FAA, EFVS 

manufacturers, and operators of EFVSequipped aircraft have all recognized 

the need for specialized training in the 

use of EFVS. The FAA proposed to 

establish EFVS training requirements to 

ensure that pilots meet minimum 

requirements to operate EFVS 

equipment, that they are trained and 

tested to a standard, and that an 

appropriate level of public safety is 

maintained. The FAA now recognizes 

that proposed § 61.31(l)(6) and (l)(7) 

would have permitted a pilot who is 

untrained and inexperienced with the 

use of EFVS to receive a proficiency 

check on the tasks set forth in 

§ 61.66(b)(2) in lieu of receiving the 

initial training on those tasks. This was 

not the FAA’s intent as such a 

requirement would contravene the 

FAA’s reasons for establishing EFVS 

training requirements. The FAA notes, 

however, that pilots who have 

satisfactorily completed training on 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE prior to this final rule will not be 

required to receive duplicative training 

under § 61.66(a) and (b). Instead, those 

pilots will be given credit for their 

previously obtained training pursuant to 

§ 61.66(h)(4), which is discussed in 

more detail below. 

The FAA is also revising § 61.66(a)(2) 

and (b)(2)(vii) as a result of a comment 

raised by GAMA. GAMA recommended 

that the FAA align the terminology in 

proposed § 61.31(l)(4)(vii) with the 

terminology ‘‘EFVS image,’’ ‘‘EFVS 

sensor imagery,’’ and ‘‘flight 

information and flight symbology,’’ used 

in § 91.176. Sections 91.176(a)(1)(i)(B) 

and (a)(1)(i)(E) now use the phrase 

‘‘aircraft flight information and flight 

symbology,’’ rather than ‘‘aircraft flight 

symbology.’’ The FAA agrees with 

GAMA that the terminology should be 

consistent in part 61. The FAA is 

therefore revising § 61.66(b)(2)(vii), 

previously proposed as § 61.31(l)(4)(vii), 

to include a reference to required 

aircraft flight information and flight 

symbology, as used in § 91.176. For 

consistency, the FAA is also revising 

§ 61.66(a)(2), previously proposed as 

§ 61.31(l)(2), by adding new paragraph 

(ii) to include EFVS sensor imagery and 

required aircraft flight information and 

flight symbology as subjects of ground 

training for EFVS operations. 

Additionally, the FAA is revising 

§ 61.66(a)(2)(i) to read ‘‘Airplane Flight 

Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

limitations’’ instead of ‘‘AFM 

limitations’’ because EFVS operations 

apply to both airplanes and rotorcraft. 

The reference to ‘‘Airplane Flight 

Manual or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

limitations’’ includes the limitations 

found in the Airplane Flight Manual 

Supplement or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

Supplement as well as those found in 

the AFM or RFM. 

The FAA is also revising certain terms 

and concepts in § 61.66 to be consistent 

with current regulations, including 

revisions resulting from several 

rulemaking actions that were published 

after the EFVS proposal was 

published.43 The FAA is replacing the 

terminology ‘‘other endorsement’’ with 

‘‘training record endorsement’’ in 

§ 61.66(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and (c)(2) for 

consistency with terminology used in 

other sections of part 61. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90149 

44See Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Joshua 

Wynne from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant 

Chief Counsel for Regulations (Aug. 1, 2008) 

(explaining that the six calendar month period 

described in § 61.57(c) begins when a pilot 

successfully completes his or her practical test). 

‘‘By passing the practical test, the pilot has 

demonstrated his or her instrument proficiency.’’ 

Id. Similarly, the six calendar month period 

described in § 61.66(d) begins when a pilot 

successfully completes the EFVS training and 

obtains the necessary endorsements. 

45See ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification; Technical Amendment,’’ 76 FR 78141, 

78142 (Dec. 16, 2011) (‘‘[A] pilot who has failed to 

maintain instrument currency for more than six 

calendar months may not serve as pilot in 

command under IFR or in weather conditions less 

than the minimums prescribed for visual flight 

rules (VFR) until completing an instrument 

proficiency check. A pilot whose instrument 

currency has been lapsed for less than six months 

may continue to reestablish instrument currency by 

performing the tasks and maneuvers required in 

[§ 61.57(c)].’’) 

2. Recent Flight Experience and EFVS 

Refresher Training for Persons 

Conducting EFVS Operations (§ 61.66(d) 

and (e)) 

Section 61.66(d) requires a person to 

perform and log six instrument 

approaches as the sole manipulator of 

the controls using an EFVS under any 

weather conditions in the category of 

aircraft for which the person is seeking 

the EFVS privilege. In order to 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft or 

act as pilot in command of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation, these six 

instrument approaches must be 

accomplished within six calendar 

months preceding the month of the 

flight. These instrument approaches 

may be performed in either day or night 

conditions. One approach must 

terminate in a full stop landing. For a 

person authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout, 

that person must conduct the full stop 

landing using the EFVS. These 

requirements were previously proposed 

in § 61.57(h). The FAA is adopting these 

requirements in new § 61.66(d) with two 

substantive changes. First, the FAA is 

clarifying that recent flight experience 

may be performed in either day or night 

conditions. Second, to be consistent 

with the requirement originally 

proposed for proficiency checks in 

§ 61.57(i), the FAA is clarifying that 

recent flight experience must be 

performed in the same category of 

aircraft for which the pilot holds EFVS 

privileges under § 61.66(a) and (b). 

Section 61.66(e) requires a person 

who has failed to meet the recent flight 

experience requirements of paragraph 

(d) for more than six calendar months to 

reestablish EFVS currency only by 

satisfactorily completing an approved 

EFVS refresher course in the category of 

aircraft for which the person is seeking 

the EFVS privilege. The EFVS refresher 

course must consist of the subjects and 

tasks specified in § 61.66(a)(2) and (b)(2) 

applicable to the EFVS operations to be 

conducted. Section 61.66(e) differs from 

the proposal in the NPRM in that it 

more closely resembles the instrument 

proficiency check requirements in 

§ 61.57(d) and rather than calling the 

mechanism by which a person 

reestablishes EFVS currency a 

proficiency check, the FAA is calling it 

a refresher course. 

In the NPRM, proposed § 61.57(i) 

would have required a person who did 

not meet the recent flight experience 

requirements in proposed § 61.57(h) to 

pass an EFVS proficiency check to act 

as PIC in an EFVS operation or to 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation. However, the 

discussion of proposed § 61.57(i) in the 

NPRM obscured the proposed 

requirement by stating that a person 

acting as PIC or a person manipulating 

the controls of an aircraft in an EFVS 

operation would either have been 

required to meet the proposed EFVS 

recent flight experience requirements or 

pass an EFVS proficiency check. 

Because of the statement in the NPRM, 

proposed § 61.57(i) could have been 

interpreted one of two ways. Proposed 

§ 61.57(i) could have meant that a pilot 

who did not meet the recent flight 

experience requirements of proposed 

§ 61.57(h) could have reestablished 

EFVS currency only by completing an 

EFVS proficiency check. Alternatively, 

proposed § 61.57(i) could have meant 

that a pilot who did not meet the recent 

flight experience requirements in 

§ 61.57(h) could have reestablished 

EFVS currency by either: (1) Satisfying 

the EFVS recent flight experience 

requirements in proposed § 61.57(h); or 

(2) completing an EFVS proficiency 

check pursuant to § 61.57(i). 

The FAA’s intent was to require a 

person who did not meet the recent 

flight experience requirements to 

reestablish EFVS currency only by 

completing an EFVS proficiency check, 

similar to the instrument proficiency 

check requirements in § 61.57(d). Upon 

further reflection, the FAA has decided 

that the term proficiency check is 

inappropriate in the context of 

reestablishing EFVS currency. Unlike an 

instrument proficiency check, which is 

based on the instrument practical test 

standards, an EFVS proficiency check 

would not have been based on any 

standards. Rather, an EFVS proficiency 

check would have consisted of the 

training tasks specified in proposed 

§ 61.31(l). Because proposed § 61.57(h) 

would have resulted in a person 

receiving additional training rather than 

a proficiency check based on 

performance standards, the FAA has 

decided to call it an EFVS refresher 

course. Additionally, because proposed 

§ 61.57(h) would have required the 

additional training to consist of the 

tasks in proposed § 61.31(l), which 

proposed both ground and flight 

training, the FAA is requiring the EFVS 

refresher course to consist of the ground 

subjects and the flight tasks specified in 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) as 

applicable to the EFVS operation to be 

conducted. 

To avoid ambiguity, the FAA is 

restructuring § 61.66(e) to more closely 

resemble the language for instrument 

recent flight experience in § 61.57(d) 

with respect to the six calendar month 

timeframe. The FAA believes that using 

language from § 61.57(d), which pilots 

are already familiar with, will better 

inform pilots on how to remain current 

for EFVS operations under § 61.66. 

Accordingly, under new § 61.66(e), if a 

person has failed to meet the EFVS 

experience requirements of § 61.66(d) 

for more than six calendar months— 

meaning it has been more than six 

months since the person was last 

current to perform an EFVS operation, 

that person may reestablish EFVS 

currency only by satisfactorily 

completing an EFVS refresher course 

pursuant to § 61.66(e). The FAA notes 

that the six calendar month period 

described in § 61.66(d) begins when a 

pilot satisfactorily completes the ground 

and flight training and obtains the 

necessary endorsements under 

§ 61.66(a) and (b).44

Section 61.66(e) contains a 

substantive change from what was 

proposed in that it provides a six-month 

grace period for pilots who have failed 

to maintain the EFVS recent flight 

experience requirements of § 61.66(d). 

The proposed regulatory text would 

have required a pilot to receive an EFVS 

proficiency check if he or she had not 

performed and logged the tasks 

specified in § 61.66(d) within the 6 

calendar months preceding the month of 

the flight. Under new § 61.66(e), 

however, a pilot may fail to maintain 

EFVS currency for up to 6 calendar 

months without having to obtain 

refresher training. As with instrument 

recent flight experience, a pilot has an 

additional 6 calendar months to 

complete the recent EFVS flight 

experience tasks specified in § 61.66(d) 

without having to take an EFVS 

refresher course to reestablish his or her 

EFVS privileges.45 In other words, a 

pilot has six months from the date that 

he or she was last current to conduct 

EFVS operations to perform the EFVS 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90150 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

46 During this six-month grace period, a person 

may not act as PIC of an EFVS operation but may 

manipulate the controls under the supervision of a 

PIC properly qualified and current for the purpose 

of reestablishing currency. See Legal Interpretation, 

Letter to Joseph P. Carr from John H. Cassady, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 7, 

1984) (discussing the second six-month period as it 

pertains to a pilot regaining his or her instrument 

currency and noting that, during this second sixmonth period, a pilot is prohibited from acting as 

PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums). 

47As explained above, the proposed EFVS 

proficiency check is now called EFVS refresher 

training. 

recent flight experience required by 

§ 61.66(d), which may be accomplished 

in any weather conditions.46 If a pilot 

fails to maintain EFVS currency for 

more than 6 calendar months, however, 

that pilot may not manipulate the 

controls or act as PIC of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation until he or 

she completes an EFVS refresher course. 

The FAA never intended the 

requirements of § 61.66(d) to replace the 

instrument experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(c). In fact, the instrument 

experience requirements specified in 

§ 61.57(c) lay the foundation for 

conducting safe EFVS operations by 

ensuring pilots are proficient in 

conducting instrument approach 

procedures. The FAA structured 

§ 61.66(d) to enable pilots to satisfy both 

the instrument experience requirements 

and the EFVS operating experience 

requirements during the same flight or 

series of flights. For example, a person 

performing an EFVS operation on an 

instrument approach under IMC may be 

able to log that instrument approach 

under § 61.57(c) provided he or she is 

operating the aircraft solely by reference 

to the instruments. Under certain 

conditions, the pilot may have to 

remove the EFVS sensor image for a 

portion of the approach in order to 

operate the aircraft solely by reference 

to the instruments. In weather 

conditions that exceed the sensor’s 

capabilities, such as clouds, dense fog, 

or heavy rain, the pilot may not have to 

remove the EFVS sensor image if it 

provides no visual advantage over that 

of natural vision. However, a person 

performing an instrument approach 

using EFVS under VMC would not be 

able to log that approach under 

§ 61.57(c), unless that person were using 

a HUD-compatible view limiting device, 

which enabled the person to perform 

the approach solely by reference to the 

instruments. A person would be 

required to comply with the safety pilot 

requirements in § 91.109(c) if that 

person performs an instrument 

approach with an EFVS in simulated 

weather conditions using a view 

limiting device. 

3. EFVS Recent Flight Experience 

Boeing commented that proposed 

§ 61.57(h)(1) and (h)(2)(i) should specify 

that persons should obtain recent flight 

experience and proficiency checks using 

the same type of EFVS and in the same 

category and type of aircraft, if 

appropriate. Boeing stated that 

characteristics and controls may be 

different among different EFVS 

installations, and that there may be 

differences in the sensor position and 

out-the-window view among different 

airplanes of the same category, such as 

an ERJ–170 and a Boeing B747. 

While it is unclear whether Boeing is 

referring to category, class, and type as 

defined in § 1.1, the FAA has decided 

against requiring persons to obtain 

recent flight experience using the same 

type of EFVS in the same category, 

class, and type of aircraft. It believes 

that imposing such requirements would 

be unreasonable. The FAA has decided, 

however, to require persons to obtain 

recent flight experience using an EFVS 

in the same category of aircraft because 

the characteristics and controls of 

different categories of aircraft, such as 

rotorcraft and airplane, may be 

significantly different. From a practical 

perspective, operators train pilots on the 

specific equipment they will fly in 

accordance with their approved training 

programs. The FAA has decided to 

establish minimum standards in 

§ 61.66(d) and (e), which apply to 

operators who may be operating a broad 

range of aircraft and EFVS equipment. 

The FAA recommends, however, that 

persons obtain recent flight experience 

using EFVS-equipped aircraft in which 

the pilot expects to conduct operations. 

The FAA also recommends that 

operators address training and 

proficiency for each specific 

combination of EFVS and aircraft model 

in their approved training programs. 

FSB reports also provide 

recommendations for training, checking, 

currency, recent flight experience, and 

special emphasis areas. 

Boeing also asked the FAA for 

clarification about whether contact and 

visual approaches under IFR can satisfy 

the requirement for recent flight 

experience using EFVS. The FAA notes 

that although persons may conduct 

contact approaches and visual 

approaches under instrument flight 

rules, these approaches are not 

instrument approach procedures, as 

defined in § 1.1. Therefore, persons 

cannot use these approaches to meet the 

EFVS recent flight experience 

requirements of § 61.66(d). 

4. Persons Authorized To Conduct EFVS 

Refresher Training 

Section 61.66(e)(2) lists the persons 

authorized to conduct EFVS refresher 

training. This list differs from the 

proposed list of persons authorized to 

conduct EFVS proficiency checks in 

§ 61.57(i) based on comments from 

Boeing and based on the FAA’s own 

review of the proposal. More 

specifically, the FAA is using the term 

‘‘authorized training provider’’ in 

paragraph (e)(2) rather than the 

proposed term ‘‘authorized instructor’’ 

as a result of Boeing’s comment, and the 

FAA is not adopting proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(5). 

Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an EFVS 

refresher course to be conducted by an 

authorized training provider who meets 

the training and recent flight experience 

requirements in § 61.66. This 

requirement differs from what was 

proposed in § 61.57(i)(4), which would 

have allowed authorized instructors to 

perform EFVS proficiency checks.47 The 

FAA’s description of authorized 

instructor in proposed § 61.57(i)(4) was 

confusing as evident from Boeing’s 

comment. Boeing commented that the 

FAA uses different descriptions for 

instructors who provide initial training 

under proposed § 61.31(l) and those 

who provide proficiency checks under 

proposed § 61.57(i). It recommended 

that the FAA revise proposed § 61.57(i) 

to make it parallel proposed § 61.31(l), 

which uses the term ‘‘authorized 

instructor’’ to describe those who are 

qualified to provide initial training. As 

previously discussed, the FAA is using 

the term ‘‘authorized training provider,’’ 

rather than the proposed term 

‘‘authorized instructor,’’ in § 61.66(a) 

and (b) to clarify that all EFVS training 

must be accomplished in accordance 

with an FAA approved training program 

under 14 CFR parts 91, 91 subpart K, 

121, 125, 135, 141, or 142. The FAA 

agrees with Boeing that the FAA should 

use the same description for instructors 

who provide initial training under 

§ 61.66(a) and (b) and for instructors 

who provide EFVS refresher training 

under § 61.66(e). Accordingly, the FAA 

is using the term ‘‘authorized training 

provider’’ in § 61.66(e)(2). 

Section 61.66(e)(2) requires an 

authorized training provider to meet the 

training requirements of § 61.66 and, if 

conducting EFVS operations in an 

aircraft during the course of refresher 

training, the recent flight experience 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90151 

48An EFVS operation is defined as an operation 

in which visibility conditions require the use of 

EFVS. If an authorized training provider will be 

conducting an EFVS operation in an aircraft during 

the course of EFVS refresher training, that 

authorized training provider must be EFVS current 

in accordance with § 61.66(d) and (e). 

49Section 61.66(e) does not apply to operators 

under parts 91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 because 

§ 61.66(h)(3) excepts these operators from the recent 

flight experience requirements of § 61.66(d). 

50Section 61.66(e) also enables a person to 

receive an EFVS refresher course from an 

authorized training provider under part 61. The 

FAA is in the process of developing guidance to 

approve training programs conducted under part 

61. 

51Qualification, Service, and Use of 

Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, 78 FR 

67841 (Nov. 12, 2013). Boeing commented that 

§ 121.437 no longer exists and that the FAA should 

replace the regulatory reference with §§ 121.435 or 

121.436. The FAA agrees with Boeing and is 

replacing the regulatory reference with § 121.436. A 

rulemaking action entitled ‘‘Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier 

Operations’’ (78 FR 42374) removed § 121.437 from 

the regulations on July 15, 2013, and added new 

§§ 121.435 and 121.436. Section 121.435 contained 

the existing certificate requirements for part 121 

pilots that were in effect until July 31, 2013. After 

that date, the requirements of § 121.436 began to 

apply. The FAA notes that § 121.435 is currently 

reserved. Therefore, the correct regulatory reference 

is § 121.436. The EFVS NPRM did not reflect these 

changes because it was published prior to the July 

15, 2013 rulemaking action. 

requirements of § 61.66.48 This 

requirement is consistent with the 

NPRM because proposed § 61.57(i)(4) 

would have required the authorized 

instructor to meet the training 

requirements for EFVS operations 

specified in proposed § 61.31(l) and, if 

conducting EFVS operations in an 

aircraft, meet the recent flight 

experience requirements of proposed 

§ 61.57. 

A person may receive an EFVS 

refresher course from an authorized 

training provider under 14 CFR parts 

141 or 142.49 Therefore, § 61.66(e)(2) 

encompasses instructors under parts 

141 and 142.50

The FAA finds it unnecessary to 

adopt proposed § 61.57(i)(1), (i)(2), 

(i)(3), or (i)(5). 

The FAA is not adopting proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(1), which would have allowed 

FAA inspectors or designated examiners 

to conduct EFVS proficiency checks, 

because a person cannot obtain EFVS 

refresher training from an FAA 

inspector or designated examiner. 

The FAA is not adopting proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(2), which would have allowed 

persons who are authorized by the U.S. 

Armed Forces to perform EFVS 

proficiency checks to conduct EFVS 

proficiency checks under § 61.66(e), 

previously proposed as § 61.57(i), 

provided the person being administered 

the check was also a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces. Instead, the FAA has 

decided to create a new paragraph, 

§ 61.66(f), which solely addresses U.S. 

military pilots and former U.S. military 

pilots and which clarifies that EFVS 

proficiency checks administered in the 

U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy the 

recent flight experience requirements in 

§ 61.66(d). This paragraph is discussed 

in more detail below. 

The FAA is not adopting proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(3), which would have 

permitted company check pilots who 

are authorized to perform EFVS 

proficiency checks under parts 121, 125, 

or 135, or subpart K of part 91, to 

administer EFVS proficiency checks to 

pilots who are employed by the operator 

or fractional ownership program 

manager. The FAA finds it impractical 

to include company check pilots in the 

list of persons authorized to administer 

EFVS refresher training. The FAA also 

finds it unnecessary to include persons 

authorized to administer EFVS training 

under parts 121, 125, 135, or part 91 

subpart K in the list of persons 

authorized to administer EFVS refresher 

training because, as explained in section 

III.E.8.c.of this preamble, § 61.66(h)(3) 

excepts parts 121, 125 (including part 

125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart 

K pilots from the EFVS recent flight 

experience requirements of § 61.66(d). 

Rather than meeting recent flight 

experience requirements of § 61.66(d), 

or reestablishing EFVS currency under 

§ 61.66(e), pilots conducting EFVS 

operations for part 91 subpart K, part 

121, part 125, and part 135 operators 

will be checked on EFVS tasks and 

maneuvers under their respective parts. 

Boeing commented that proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(3) should have included 

contract pilots of an operator or 

fractional ownership program manager 

because some operators use contract 

pilots and instructors for training. While 

the FAA agrees with Boeing’s comment, 

the FAA’s decision to no longer adopt 

proposed § 61.57(i)(3) obviates 

addressing Boeing’s concern. 

The FAA is not adopting proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(5), which would have 

permitted persons to perform EFVS 

proficiency checks if they were 

approved by the FAA to perform EFVS 

proficiency checks, as unnecessary 

because § 61.66(e)(2) already allows 

persons to provide EFVS refresher 

training if they are authorized by the 

Administrator to do so. 

5. Revisions to § 61.57 

The FAA is revising certain terms and 

concepts in § 61.57. The FAA is revising 

§ 61.57(e)(2) and (e)(3) to correct 

drafting errors that occurred in a 

previous rulemaking. A drafting error 

occurred in paragraph (e)(2), which 

stated ‘‘when the pilot is engaged in a 

flight operation under parts 91 and 121 

for that certificate holder.’’ A drafting 

error also occurred in paragraph (e)(3), 

which said ‘‘when the pilot is engaged 

in a flight operation under parts 91 and 

135 for that certificate holder.’’ The 

FAA is revising ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ to state 

‘‘parts 91 or 121’’ and ‘‘parts 91 or 135,’’ 

respectively. 

The FAA is also revising § 61.57(e)(2) 

to remove a reference to § 121.435, 

which is currently a reserved section 

and has contained no requirements 

since March 12, 2014.51

6. Military Pilots and Former Military 

Pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces 

(§ 61.66(f)) 

The FAA is creating a new paragraph, 

§ 61.66(f), which solely addresses 

military pilots and former military 

pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. This 

new paragraph clarifies the regulations 

applicable to these pilots. 

Under § 61.66(f), a military pilot or 

former military pilot in the U.S. Armed 

Forces is excepted from the ground and 

flight training requirements in § 61.66(a) 

and (b) if he or she can document 

satisfactory completion of ground and 

flight training in EFVS operations by the 

U.S. Armed Forces. This requirement 

differs from the NPRM, where the FAA 

proposed to permit EFVS proficiency 

checks administered in the U.S. Armed 

Forces in lieu of the EFVS ground and 

flight training requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). A pilot obtains 

a proficiency check in the U.S. Armed 

Forces after receiving the required 

ground and flight training. Therefore, 

the FAA has decided to accept 

documentation of EFVS ground and 

flight training by the U.S. Armed Forces, 

rather than an EFVS proficiency check, 

in lieu of the ground and flight training 

requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b). 

Accordingly, the training requirements 

in (a) and (b) do not apply to a military 

or former military pilot in the U.S. 

Armed Forces if that person can 

document satisfactory completion of 

ground and flight training in EFVS 

operations by the U.S. Armed Forces. 

The FAA believes this change provides 

clarity and consistency for military 

pilots and former military pilots in the 

U.S. Armed Forces. 

Under § 61.66(f)(3), a military pilot or 

former military pilot in the U.S. Armed 

Forces may satisfy the recent flight 

experience requirements in paragraph 

(d) if he or she documents satisfactory 

completion of an EFVS proficiency 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90152 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

52Part 60 requires level C and level D simulators 

to have daylight visual scenes. See Part 60, Table 

A1A Minimum Simulator Requirements. However, 

before the FAA adopted part 60 on May 9, 2008, 

the FAA required only level D simulators to have 

daylight visual scenes. Section 61.66(g)(1) permits 

persons to use previously qualified devices in 

accordance with § 60.17. Thus, § 61.66(g)(3) 

expressly requires a level C or higher FFS to be 

equipped with a daylight visual display if being 

used to meet the flight training requirements of 

§ 61.66(b). This equipment requirement is necessary 

because some level C simulators qualified prior to 

the establishment of part 60 were not required to 

have daylight visual scenes. 

53The FAA notes that, under § 61.66(d), recent 

flight experience may be accomplished in any 

weather conditions not just conditions that require 

the use of an EFVS. 

check in the U.S. Armed Forces within 

6 calendar months preceding the month 

of the flight. The check must be 

conducted by a person authorized by 

the U.S. Armed Forces to administer the 

check and the person receiving the 

check must have been a member of the 

U.S. Armed Forces at the time the check 

was administered. This requirement 

stems from proposed § 61.57(i)(2), 

which would have permitted EFVS 

proficiency checks received in the U.S. 

Armed Forces as a means of satisfying 

the recent flight experience 

requirements of § 61.66(d). Proposed 

§ 61.57(i)(2) was confusing, however, 

because a pilot operating under part 61 

would not have the option of going to 

a person authorized by the U.S. Armed 

Forces to perform EFVS proficiency 

checks, and a military pilot receiving an 

EFVS proficiency check in the U.S. 

Armed Forces would be receiving the 

check for military purposes—not for the 

purpose of satisfying the EFVS recent 

flight experience requirements of 

§ 61.66(d). The FAA is therefore 

adopting new § 61.66(f)(3) to clarify that 

EFVS proficiency checks administered 

in the U.S. Armed Forces may satisfy 

the recent flight experience 

requirements in § 61.66(d). 

7. Use of Full Flight Simulators 

(§ 61.66(g)) 

Section 61.66(g) states that a person 

may use a level C or higher full flight 

simulator (FFS) equipped with an EFVS 

to meet the flight training, recent flight 

experience, and refresher training 

requirements of § 61.66. Section 61.66(g) 

is consistent with the NPRM, where 

proposed § 61.31(l)(5), § 61.57(h)(2), and 

§ 61.57(i) would have permitted the use 

of FFS to meet the flight training, recent 

flight experience, and proficiency check 

requirements of proposed § 61.31 and 

§ 61.57. The FAA has decided to 

consolidate these proposed 

requirements into one section for 

clarity. Accordingly, § 61.66(g) now 

contains the FFS requirements for 

meeting the flight training, recent flight 

experience, and refresher training 

requirements of § 61.66. 

The FAA is using the term ‘‘full flight 

simulator’’ in § 61.66(g), rather than 

‘‘simulator’’ as proposed, because the 

term ‘‘simulator’’ in § 1.1 has been 

replaced with the term full flight 

simulator (FFS). Additionally, § 61.66(g) 

clarifies that the FFS must be evaluated 

and qualified by the National Simulator 

Program for EFVS operations, be 

qualified and maintained in accordance 

with part 60, or be a previously 

qualified device in accordance with 

§ 60.17, and be approved by the FAA for 

the tasks and maneuvers that will be 

performed in the FFS. 

If a pilot is using a level C or higher 

FFS to meet the flight training 

requirements of § 61.66, the FFS must 

be equipped with a daylight visual 

display, as proposed in § 61.31(l)(5), 

because § 61.66(b)(2) requires certain 

flight training tasks to be conducted 

under both day and night conditions.52

However, the FAA is not adopting the 

proposed requirement that a level C or 

higher FFS be equipped with a daylight 

visual display if being used to meet the 

EFVS recent flight experience 

requirements because § 61.66(d) 

authorizes a pilot to complete the recent 

flight experience in either day or night 

conditions. 

8. Exceptions (§ 61.66(h)) 

The FAA is adopting several 

exceptions to the flight training, recent 

flight experience, and refresher training 

requirements in § 61.66. 

a. Manipulating the Controls 

(§ 61.66(h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) 

Under § 61.66(b), no person may 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation as specified 

in § 91.176(a) or (b) unless that person 

has received and logged flight training 

for the EFVS operation under a training 

program approved by the Administrator 

and obtained a logbook or training 

record endorsement from an authorized 

training provider certifying that the 

person has satisfactorily completed the 

flight training. The FAA now recognizes 

that, without an exception, § 61.66(b) 

would prohibit a person from 

manipulating the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation while he or 

she was receiving flight training in 

EFVS operations under an FAA 

approved training program. Immediately 

after the pilot received the required 

flight training and endorsement, 

however, he or she would be authorized 

to manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during EFVS operations performed on 

his or her own. 

A pilot should be permitted to 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation when that 

pilot is receiving flight training on EFVS 

operations under an FAA approved 

training program, provided the training 

provider’s instructor is qualified under 

§ 61.66 to perform the EFVS operation 

in the category of aircraft in which the 

training is being conducted. 

Accordingly, the FAA is adding new 

§ 61.66(h)(1)(i) to allow manipulation of 

the controls during flight training. 

The FAA also now recognizes that, 

without an exception, § 61.66(d) would 

prohibit a person from manipulating the 

controls of an aircraft during an EFVS 

operation conducted in the course of 

satisfying the recent flight experience 

requirements specified in paragraph (d). 

Similarly, without an exception, 

§ 61.66(d) and (e) would prohibit a 

person from manipulating the controls 

of an aircraft during an EFVS operation 

conducted during an refresher course. 

Accordingly, the FAA is adding 

exceptions in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and 

(h)(1)(iii) to permit a person to 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation conducted in 

the course of satisfying the recent flight 

experience requirements and in the 

course of completing EFVS refresher 

training. 

If a person whose currency had lapsed 

were to manipulate the controls of an 

aircraft during an EFVS operation 

performed in the course of satisfying the 

recent flight experience requirements, 

another individual would have to serve 

as PIC of the aircraft during that EFVS 

operation because a person may not act 

as PIC during an EFVS operation unless 

he or she meets the recent flight 

experience requirements specified in 

paragraph (d).53 The individual serving 

as PIC during the EFVS operation must 

be qualified under § 61.66 to perform 

the EFVS operation in the category of 

aircraft in which the flight is being 

conducted. Similarly, if a person were 

to manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation performed in 

the course of completing an EFVS 

refresher course, the person 

administering the training would have 

to be qualified under § 61.66 to perform 

the EFVS operation in the category of 

aircraft in which the training was being 

conducted. 

b. Exception to Ground and Flight 

Training (§ 61.66(h)(2)) 

The FAA is adding new § 61.66(h)(2) 

to provide personnel involved in certain 

research and development, EFVS 

certification, and operational suitability 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90153 

54An FAA-approved training program means 

training acquired under part 141 or part 142, an 

FAA-approved training program under part 125 or 

part 91 subpart K, or an FAA-approved air carrier 

training program. 

55 14 CFR 91.1081(e), 121.415(g), and 135.329(e). 

56 ‘‘Under the part 125 regulatory design, reliance 

is placed upon tests and checks to ensure airman 

are proficient. These tests and checks are adequate 

to ensure an acceptable level of safety in part 125.’’ 

45 FR 67214 (October 9, 1980). 

57Section 61.66 sets forth the specific contents for 

EFVS training. An EFVS training program—whether 

conducted by a part 121 air carrier, a part 135 

operator, a part 142 training center, or a part 141 

pilot school—must at a minimum include the 

content set forth in § 61.66(a) through (c). 

58Because § 61.66(g) authorizes a pilot to use a 

level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS) 

equipped with an EFVS to meet the flight training, 

recent flight experience, and refresher training 

requirements of § 61.66, the FAA is also amending 

appendix H to part 121 to ensure that the EFVS 

proficiency check requirements added to appendix 

F will be completed in a level C or level D FFS. 

59Because § 61.66(h)(3) excepts part 91 subpart K, 

part 121, part 125, and part 135 operators from the 

EFVS recent flight experience requirements in 

§ 61.66(d), these operators will never lapse under 

§ 61.66(d), which means these operators will never 

have to reestablish EFVS currency under § 61.66(e). 

Thus, the practical effect of § 61.66(h)(3) is that part 

91 subpart K, part 121, part 125, and part 135 

operators are also excepted from the EFVS refresher 

course requirements in § 61.66(e). 

60Section § 61.66(h)(3)(i) excepts part 121 and 

135 operators from the EFVS recent flight 

experience requirements just as § 61.57(e)(2) and 

(e)(3) except part 121 and 135 operators from the 

instrument recent flight experience requirements. 

determination activities an alternate 

means of meeting the training 

requirements of § 61.66(a) and (b). The 

FAA finds the addition is necessary 

because personnel involved in such 

activities, all of which may be 

conducted in aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under § 21.191, 

may be otherwise unable to obtain 

training under an FAA-approved 

training program, as required by 

§ 61.66(a) and (b).54 For example, FAA 

personnel involved in EFVS 

certification and operational suitability 

determination activities receive training 

through other processes that are 

provided for and specified in internal 

FAA Orders. These processes may differ 

from those specified in § 61.66(a) and 

(b), but are approved and used by the 

FAA. Another example is an applicant 

who seeks to certify an EFVS based on 

new sensor technology for which an 

FAA-approved training course does not 

yet exist and an authorized instructor 

who can give the training is not yet 

available. 

Accordingly, new § 61.66(h)(2) 

provides that the requirements specified 

in § 61.66(a) and (b) do not apply if a 

person is conducting a flight or series of 

flights in an aircraft issued an 

experimental airworthiness certificate 

for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations provided the person 

has knowledge of the subjects specified 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

has experience with the tasks specified 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

applicable to the EFVS operations to be 

conducted. This provides some 

flexibility for tasks that might be 

specified in § 61.66(b)(2) but are not 

applicable to a particular research and 

development or show-compliance 

project. 

In order to qualify under the 

exception in § 61.66(h)(2), an applicant 

must submit evidence to the FAA 

showing that he or she complies with 

§ 61.66(h)(2), along with his or her 

program letter and application for an 

experimental certificate. The guidance 

material will address circumstances in 

which it is appropriate for an applicant 

to use this alternate means of meeting 

the additional training required for 

EFVS operations under § 61.66(a) and 

(b), the process an applicant may follow, 

and other related regulatory 

requirements. 

c. Exception to Recent Flight Experience 

Requirements (§ 61.66(h)(3)) 

As noted in the NPRM, parts 121, 125, 

135, and 91 subpart K operators 

currently authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations must train, check, and 

qualify their pilots on EFVS in 

accordance with their OpSpec or 

MSpec. Existing regulations in parts 

121, 135, and 91 subpart K require 

operators to provide training that 

ensures each crewmember is qualified 

on new equipment, facilities, 

procedures, and techniques, including 

modifications to aircraft.55 Part 125 does 

not contain training requirements for 

pilots; 56 however, at a minimum, any 

person serving as a required flightcrew 

member for a part 125 operator must 

meet the EFVS training requirements in 

§ 61.66.57 The regulatory requirements 

to train crewmembers on EFVS are 

transparent within the relevant 

operating rules in 14 CFR. However, the 

requirement to be qualified for EFVS 

operations by one of the certificate 

holder’s check airmen is not as clearly 

set forth in part 121, 125, 135, or 91 

subpart K. The FAA is therefore revising 

§§ 91.1065, 125.287, 135.293, and 

appendix F to part 121 58 to provide 

greater clarity on the checking 

requirements for EFVS operations. 

Operators authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations will incorporate EFVS into 

existing recurrent training and checking 

to ensure pilots remain proficient on 

EFVS tasks and maneuvers. Because 

pilots will be checked on EFVS tasks 

and maneuvers under part 91 subpart K, 

part 121, part 125, and part 135, the 

FAA is adding § 61.66(h)(3), which 

excepts parts 121, 125 (including part 

125 LODA holders), 135, and 91 subpart 

K pilots from the EFVS recent flight 

experience requirements in § 61.66(d).59

The exception in § 61.66(h)(3) is 

consistent with the instrument recency 

provisions, namely § 61.57(e)(2) and 

(e)(3), which except part 121 and 135 

pilots from the instrument recent flight 

experience specified in § 61.57(c).60

Section 61.66(h)(3) also excepts part 91 

subpart K and part 125 operators 

(including part 125 LODA holders) from 

the recent flight experience 

requirements in § 61.66(d) because, as a 

practical matter, part 91 subpart K and 

part 125 operators (including part 125 

LODA holders) accomplish instrument 

proficiency checks under §§ 91.1069 

and 125.291 rather than completing the 

instrument recency tasks specified in 

§ 61.57(c). Section 61.66(d) is modeled 

after the instrument recent flight 

experience requirements in § 61.57. To 

be consistent with the practical 

application of §§ 61.57, 91.1069 and 

125.291, and to ensure that the FAA 

does not impose an additional burden 

on part 91 subpart K and part 125 

operations, the FAA is excepting them 

from § 61.66(d). Instead, part 91 subpart 

K and part 125 operators (including part 

125 LODA holders) will be treated 

similar to part 121 and part 135 

operators in terms of EFVS checking 

requirements, as explained above, 

which is consistent with the way the 

FAA has been treating them in EFVS 

authorizations since 2004. 

The exception in § 61.66(h)(3) states 

that the recent flight experience 

requirements of § 61.66(d) do not apply 

to a pilot employed by: A part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121, 125, or 135; 

a part 125 LODA holder authorized to 

conduct operations under part 125; or a 

fractional ownership program manager 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 91 subpart K, when the pilot is 

conducting an EFVS operation for that 

certificate holder, LODA holder, or 

program manager under parts 91, 121, 

125, or 135, as applicable, provided the 

pilot is conducting the operation in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

OpSpec, with the LODA holder’s LOA, 

or with the program manager’s MSpec 

for EFVS operations. 

As with the recency exceptions in 

§ 61.57, the exception from EFVS 

recency requirements set forth in 

§ 61.66(h)(3) applies only when a pilot 

is conducting an EFVS operation for a 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90154 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

61Because persons conducting EFVS operations 

to 100 feet above the TDZE may comply with 

§ 91.175(l) and (m) prior to March 13, 2018, the 

appropriate sections of 14 CFR, including §§ 91.175, 

91.1039, 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, and 135.225, 

will reference both §§ 91.175(l) and 91.176. After 

March 13, 2018, however, § 91.175(l) and (m) will 

be removed from 14 CFR along with any references 

to these paragraphs. 

62Although operators conducting EFVS 

operations under § 91.175(l) and (m) were not 

required to receive EFVS training, the majority of 

them would have received EFVS training prior to 

conducting EFVS operations. As explained in the 

NPRM, EFVS manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, 

and operators have all recognized the need for 

pilots to receive training in the use of EFVS prior 

to conducting EFVS operations. In fact, noncommercial operators generally obtained EFVS 

training for their pilots at 142 training centers. 

63Section 61.66(h)(4) does not require the ground 

and flight training on EFVS operations to have been 

obtained under an FAA approved training program. 

part 119 certificate holder under part 91, 

121, 125, or 135, for a LODA holder 

under part 125, or for a fractional 

ownership program manager under part 

91 subpart K. The pilot would be 

required to comply with § 61.66(d) if he 

or she were to conduct an EFVS 

operation outside of the part 119 

certificate holder’s, the LODA holder’s, 

or the part 91 subpart K program 

manager’s operations. If a pilot 

conducting EFVS operations for either a 

part 119 certificate holder, a LODA 

holder, or a program manager has not 

satisfied the recent flight experience 

requirements specified in § 61.66(d) 

within six calendar months preceding 

the month of his or her flight, that pilot 

would still be deemed EFVS current 

(outside of the part 119 certificate 

holder’s, the LODA holder’s, or the 

program manager’s operations) if he or 

she had accomplished a check on EFVS 

operations under part 91 subpart K, 121, 

125, or 135 by an individual described 

in paragraph (e)(iii), (iv), or (v), as 

appropriate, provided it were obtained 

within six calendar months preceding 

the month of the flight. 

d. Grandfather Clause (§ 61.66(h)(4)) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

§ 61.31(l)(7)(ii), which would have 

excepted pilots from the new EFVS 

ground and flight training requirements 

if they satisfactorily completed a 

training program, proficiency check, or 

other course of instruction applicable to 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE that is acceptable to the 

Administrator prior to March 13, 2019. 

Proposed § 61.31(l)(7) was intended to 

decrease the regulatory burden on pilots 

who have been safely conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

under § 91.175(l) and (m) and to provide 

pilot schools and training centers with 

adequate time to develop training 

programs that meet the proposed 

training requirements. 

After further consideration, the FAA 

finds that proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii) 

would not have sufficiently reduced the 

regulatory burden on operators who 

have been conducting EFVS operations 

to 100 feet above the TDZE under 

§ 91.175(l) and (m) as it focused only on 

pilot qualification requirements. 

Because this final rule should not cause 

any disruption to operators or pilots 

who have been conducting EFVS 

operations under § 91.175(l) and (m), 

the FAA is restructuring the proposed 

regulations to provide an adequate 

transition period for operators and 

pilots conducting EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE. Accordingly, 

§ 91.175(n) requires persons conducting 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE to comply with either § 91.175(l) 

and (m) or § 91.176(b) until March 13, 

2018.61 Beginning on March 13, 2018, 

persons conducting EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE must comply 

with § 91.176(b) and thus the training, 

recent flight experience and refresher 

training requirements set forth in 

§ 61.66. 

The FAA is adding an exception to 

§ 61.66(h)(5) to clarify that, 

notwithstanding § 91.175(l)(5), persons 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE under § 91.175(l) and 

(m) prior to March 13, 2018, are not 

required to comply with the new 

training, recent flight experience, and 

refresher training requirements in 

§ 61.66. Instead, during the transition 

period, persons may conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

just as they have been under § 91.175(l) 

and (m).62 The FAA believes the new 

transition period is consistent with the 

discussion in the NPRM in that it 

decreases the regulatory burden on 

persons already conducting EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

and it provides pilot schools and 

training centers with adequate time to 

develop training programs that meet the 

proposed training requirements. 

Furthermore, the FAA is adopting 

§ 61.66(h)(4), which excepts persons 

from the ground and flight training 

requirements in § 61.66(a) and (b) if they 

are conducting EFVS operations under 

§ 91.176(b) and can document that prior 

to March 13, 2018, they have 

satisfactorily completed ground and 

flight training on EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE. The FAA 

notes, however, that in order to conduct 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout, these persons must still 

complete the supplemental EFVS 

training pursuant to § 61.66(c). 

Section 61.66(h)(4) is consistent with 

the intent of proposed § 61.31(l)(7)(ii), 

which was to decrease the regulatory 

burden on pilots already conducting 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE by providing them with a 

reasonable means of demonstrating 

compliance with the proposed ground 

and flight training requirements. The 

FAA restructured proposed 

§ 61.31(l)(7)(ii), however, to clarify what 

is required of pilots who wish to be 

excepted from the new EFVS training 

requirements based on their previous 

EFVS experience. Accordingly, new 

§ 61.66(h)(4) clarifies that pilots must be 

able to document that prior to March 13, 

2018, they have satisfactorily completed 

ground and flight training on EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE.63

The FAA acknowledges the reduction in 

time from 24 calendar months after the 

effective date of the final rule to 12 

months after the effective date of the 

final rule. The FAA reduced the cutoff 

date to 12 months after the effective date 

of the final rule to coincide with the 

transition period provided to operators 

in § 91.175(n). Reducing the duration of 

time to 12 calendar months should not 

impact operators as the FAA expects 

operators to comply with § 91.176(b) 

and § 61.66 as soon as practicable. 

Likewise, pilots who have received 

training in EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE during the transition 

period will not be required to duplicate 

that training—as permitted under 

§ 61.66(h)(4). 

Furthermore, while proposed 

§ 61.31(l)(7) was intended to provide 

training centers and pilot schools 

sufficient time to either revise or 

develop training programs that 

complied with the new training 

requirements; it would not have 

established a definitive compliance date 

for such persons. The FAA is therefore 

adopting § 91.176(b)(4) to clarify that 

persons conducting EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE must comply 

with the new requirements in 

§ 91.176(b) and § 61.66 beginning on 

March 13, 2018. However, the FAA 

encourages persons to comply with the 

new requirements in § 91.176(b) and 

§ 61.66 as soon as practicable. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90155 

64Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. James B. Hart 

from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (April 21, 2009); see also 

FAA Information for Operators (Info) 08050 (Sept. 

25, 2008). 65The FAA recognizes that operators authorized 

to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE under § 91.175 do not have visibility 

limitations specified in their OpSpecs or LOAs 

authorizing the use of EFVS. The FAA will include 

visibility limitations in OpSpecs or LOAs 

authorizing EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE under § 91.176(b). 

66While § 135.219 uses the term ‘‘authorized IFR 

landing minimums’’ rather than ‘‘authorized 

minimums,’’ the FAA interprets § 135.219 

consistently with §§ 121.613 and 125.361. 

67Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Gregory 

Unterseher from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant 

Chief Counsel for Regulations (April 12, 2010); 

Legal Interpretation, Letter to Captain Mark 

Anderson from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant 

Chief Counsel for Regulations (May 31, 2006). 

68Proposal to Upgrade Regulation of Certain 

Large General Aviation Airplanes and Replace 

Commercial Operator and Air Travel Club 

Regulations, 44 FR 66324, 66327 (Nov. 19, 1979). 

69AC 90–106A, Section 10, ‘‘Operational 

Approval Process for EFVS Operations,’’ provides 

an approval process for operators to demonstrate 

their ability to perform EFVS operations under 

§ 91.176. The process consists of five distinct, yet 

Continued 

F. Dispatching, Releasing, or Initiating a 

Flight Using EFVS-Equipped Aircraft 

When the Reported or Forecast Visibility 

at the Destination Airport Is Below 

Authorized Minimums (§§ 121.613, 

125.361, 135.219) and Initiating or 

Continuing an Approach Using EFVSEquipped Aircraft When the Destination 

Airport Visibility Is Below Authorized 

Minimums (§§ 121.651, 125.325, 

125.381, 135.225) 

The FAA proposed to amend the 

dispatch, flight release, and takeoff 

regulations found in §§ 121.613, 

125.361, and 135.219 to permit 

operators authorized to conduct EFVS 

operations to dispatch, release, or 

takeoff under IFR when weather reports 

or forecasts indicate that weather 

conditions will be below the minimums 

authorized for the approaches to be 

flown at the destination airport. The 

FAA is no longer amending §§ 121.613, 

125.361, and 135.219, as proposed, 

because the amendments are 

unnecessary as evidenced by a legal 

interpretation that was issued by the 

Assistant Chief Counsel for the 

Regulations Division on April 21, 

2009.64 The legal interpretation explains 

that authorized minimums are 

identified in various documents 

pertaining to the conduct of the flight, 

such as standard instrument approach 

procedures and operations 

specifications. Weather conditions at an 

airport must be at or above these 

authorized minimums at an aircraft’s 

estimated time of arrival if the aircraft 

is to be dispatched or released under 

part 121 or 125, or a pilot takes off 

under IFR or begins an IFR over-the-top 

operation under part 135, to that 

location. For an EFVS operation, the 

controlling visibility limitation will be 

specified in the operator’s OpSpec or 

LOA authorizing the use of EFVS.65

Because the FAA interprets ‘‘authorized 

minimums’’ in §§ 121.613, 125.361, and 

135.219 to include visibility minimums 

specified in OpSpecs, an operator 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations 

is already permitted to dispatch, release, 

or takeoff when weather reports or 

forecasts indicate that the weather 

conditions will be below the minimums 

authorized in the standard instrument 

approach procedure to be flown at the 

destination airport, so long as the 

weather conditions will be at or above 

the controlling visibility limitation in 

the OpSpec authorizing the use of 

EFVS.66

The FAA also proposed to amend 

§§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a) to permit 

operators to dispatch or release an 

EFVS-equipped aircraft when weather 

reports or forecasts indicate that the 

weather conditions will be below the 

authorized minimums at the destination 

airport. The FAA is no longer amending 

§§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a), as 

proposed, because the amendments are 

unnecessary as evidenced by two legal 

interpretations that were issued by the 

Assistant Chief Counsel for the 

Regulations Division on April 12, 2010 

and May 31, 2006.67 The legal 

interpretations explain that under 

§ 121.615(a), an air carrier may dispatch 

an extended overwater flight to a 

destination airport that is forecasted to 

be below minimums so long as an 

alternate airport is forecasted to be 

above minimums. The FAA interprets 

§ 125.363(a) consistently with 

§ 121.615(a) because § 125.363(a) was 

based on, and contains the same 

language as, § 121.615(a).68 It is 

therefore unnecessary to amend 

§§ 121.615(a) and 125.363(a) as 

proposed. 

As originally proposed, the FAA is 

amending §§ 121.651, 125.325, 125.381, 

and 135.225 to permit operators 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations 

to initiate or continue an approach 

under IFR when weather reports or 

forecasts, or any combination thereof, 

indicate the weather conditions at the 

destination airport are below the 

authorized minimums for the approach 

to be flown. The FAA has also decided 

to amend § 91.1039(e), which was not 

originally proposed, to clarify that an 

EFVS operation is permitted when the 

landing weather minimums are less 

than those prescribed by the authority 

having jurisdiction over the airport. The 

FAA believes these amendments will 

enable operators to take full advantage 

of the operational capabilities provided 

by EFVS to improve access to runways, 

increase service reliability, and reduce 

the costs associated with operational 

delays, without compromising safety. 

Boeing commented that when the rule 

becomes effective and operators obtain 

the appropriate authorization to conduct 

EFVS operations, they will be able to fly 

approaches to landing and rollout in 

virtually any weather. Boeing 

questioned whether performance data is 

currently available that demonstrates 

there will be a consistent positive 

outcome across all operators as a result 

of this new capability. It suggested the 

FAA obtain experience with one or two 

operators before adopting the EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

rule for all operators. It believes it is 

more appropriate to get performance 

data for a few operators using the new 

capability, before making it available to 

everyone. 

The FAA disagrees. Operators have 

been safely conducting EFVS operations 

to 100 feet above the TDZE for over 12 

years. This final rule is expanding these 

operations to include EFVS operations 

to touchdown and rollout and to permit 

operators using EFVS-equipped aircraft 

to dispatch, release a flight, or takeoff 

under IFR, and to initiate and continue 

an approach, when the destination 

airport weather is below authorized 

visibility minimums for the runway of 

intended landing. The FAA is 

implementing new training, recent flight 

experience, and proficiency 

requirements to ensure that pilots are 

trained and tested to a standard on 

EFVS operations and to ensure that 

these pilots maintain the knowledge and 

skills necessary to safely conduct EFVS 

operations. Additionally, the FAA 

intends to provide operating conditions 

and limitations in an operator’s EFVS 

authorization to ensure the safe conduct 

of all EFVS operations. 

Furthermore, the FAA specifically 

structured the EFVS regulations to 

provide flexibility and to enable the 

FAA to structure an operator’s 

authorization to conduct new EFVS 

operations in a way that links equipage 

and system performance to specific 

operational capabilities. The equipment 

certification process will ensure the 

EFVS meets the equipment 

requirements and certification criteria 

for the operation for which the EFVS is 

intended. The operational approval 

process will validate the operator’s 

ability to safely perform the EFVS 

operation.69 The operational approval 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90156 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

related phases. The demonstration and inspection 

phase of the process is the major validation phase 

where the FAA observes and evaluates the 

operator’s demonstration of its ability to perform in 

accordance with the procedures, guidelines, and 

parameters described in the operator’s formal 

proposal. This phase concludes when the operator 

provides sufficient proof to satisfy the FAA’s 

requirements. The demonstration and inspection 

phase permits new EFVS capabilities to be 

deployed while providing regulatory oversight and 

verification of system and crew performance. 

70Part 21 contains the certification procedures for 

products and parts. Parts 23, 25, 27 and 29 contain 

the airworthiness standards for EFVS. AC 20–167A 

and AC 90–106A contain guidance on EFVS sensor 

performance and airworthiness certification 

appropriate to the EFVS operation to be conducted. 

process also evaluates and monitors 

EFVS equipment reliability and 

validates the operator’s ability to 

maintain the EFVS equipment. 

Several commenters requested 

clarification on how the FAA intends to 

manage an operator’s authorization to 

dispatch, release, or takeoff under IFR, 

and to initiate and continue an 

approach, when the destination airport 

weather is below authorized visibility 

minimums. Airbus noted that the FAA 

expects to manage this authorization 

through an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, 

or LOA for EFVS operations to ensure 

that an increase in the rate of missed 

approaches does not occur. It requested 

clarification on how the FAA will 

manage this expectation and what 

requirements this might place on 

airborne sensor performance. CMC 

Electronics, Inc. (CMC) asked the FAA 

to clarify how it will require OEMs to 

demonstrate EFVS capabilities to 

support these authorizations. To 

illustrate its concerns, CMC noted that 

RVR reporting does not directly relate to 

EFVS performance and stated that a 

given RVR measurement can be a result 

of different types of weather conditions 

that look the same in the visible 

spectrum but may lead to different 

performance in currently certified EFVS 

systems. Rockwell Collins commented 

that it assumes visibility limitations will 

appear in an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, 

or LOA for EFVS operations as the 

limitations do not appear in rule 

language. Rockwell Collins also asked 

whether it is possible to have a higher 

than RVR 1000 feet visibility limitation 

based on a lesser performing sensor, or 

whether there is the potential for a 

sensor to be given multiple approvals 

based on performance in different 

environmental conditions. Thales 

commented that the FAA should clearly 

define minimums for these operations 

based on EFVS sensor technology, 

system performance, and installation 

criteria to ensure equality of treatment 

for all applicants. 

The response to these comments is 

that an applicant who seeks to certify an 

EFVS will demonstrate EFVS 

performance for its aircraft during the 

EFVS equipment certification process.70

During that process, the FAA will 

determine whether an EFVS meets the 

equipment requirements and 

certification criteria for the EFVS 

operation it is intended to be used for 

(i.e., an EFVS operation to 100 feet or an 

EFVS operation to touchdown and 

rollout). EFVS equipment certification 

criteria differ depending on the EFVS 

operation to be conducted. Initially the 

FAA plans to authorize EFVS operations 

to touchdown and rollout to visibilities 

as low as RVR 1000 feet. The FAA 

expects to develop touchdown and 

rollout authorizations in the future to 

lower visibilities as EFVS equipment is 

developed to support those operations. 

In addition to the EFVS equipment 

certification process, the operational 

approval process—which verifies an 

operator’s ability to safely perform the 

EFVS operation—includes a 

demonstration and inspection phase. 

During this phase, the FAA evaluates an 

operator’s processes, procedures, and 

training as well as the ability of the 

operator’s maintenance personnel and 

dispatchers, or persons authorized to 

exercise operational control, to support 

the EFVS operations to be conducted. 

This process verifies the operator’s 

ability to conduct EFVS operations and 

to determine when it is appropriate to 

dispatch a flight, release a flight, or take 

off under IFR as well as initiate or 

continue an approach when the weather 

at the destination airport is below 

authorized minimums. In accordance 

with § 91.176(a)(4), the FAA may 

prescribe additional equipment, 

operational, and visibility and visual 

reference requirements to account for 

specific equipment characteristics, 

operational procedures, or approach 

characteristics through an operator’s 

authorization to conduct EFVS 

operations. Accordingly, the FAA may 

specify minimum visibilities in 

OpSpecs for part 121, 125, or 135 

operators to initiate and continue an 

approach using an EFVS-equipped 

aircraft when the destination airport 

weather is below authorized visibility 

minimums for the approach to be flown. 

Therefore, as Rockwell Collins assumed, 

visibility limitations will appear in an 

operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA for 

EFVS operations. In response to 

Rockwell Collins’ inquiry, it is possible 

to have a higher than RVR 1000-feetvisibility limitation depending on the 

capability of the EFVS equipment and 

on the EFVS operation the equipment is 

certified to support. Authorizations for 

future EFVS operations may specify 

other requirements under § 91.176(a)(4), 

depending on the EFVS operation to be 

conducted and the ability of the EFVS 

equipment to support a given EFVS 

operation. 

The FAA disagrees with Thales that it 

should mandate specific minimums by 

regulation for EFVS operations as this 

would be contrary to the FAA’s intent. 

The FAA acknowledges that EFVS 

performance using currently certified 

EFVS equipment can vary by sensor 

technology and design, meteorological 

conditions, and other factors; however, 

the FAA may make adjustments to an 

operator’s EFVS authorization. 

Managing an authorization in this 

manner ensures that the FAA is able to 

maintain an appropriate level of safety, 

enables the FAA to effectively respond 

to new technology developments, and 

provides a means to tailor an 

authorization to fit an operator’s 

particular EFVS capabilities. Therefore, 

although giving a sensor multiple 

approvals based on performance in 

different environmental conditions, as 

Rockwell Collins suggested, is 

impractical, the FAA may adjust an 

operator’s EFVS authorization in 

response to certain conditions. For 

example, operational experience may 

indicate that adjustments may have to 

be made in response to certain 

meteorological conditions. Operators 

who plan to conduct these operations 

should establish operating procedures 

and training that account for the 

limitations of the EFVS and weather 

conditions that may exceed the sensor’s 

ability to provide the enhanced flight 

visibility required to complete the 

approach and landing. 

Eurocopter/American Eurocopter 

commented that the provisions of 

§ 121.651(d) that permit a pilot to begin 

the final approach segment of an 

instrument approach procedure other 

than a Category II or Category III 

procedure at an airport when the 

visibility is less than the visibility 

minimums prescribed for that procedure 

should not be limited to airports that are 

served by an operative ILS and an 

operative PAR. Eurocopter asserted that 

LPV approaches are becoming 

commonplace and are the only 

approaches with vertical guidance 

available at many airfields. The 

commenter recommended that 

§ 121.651(d) permit the use of WAAS/

LPV, particularly with respect to EFVS 

operations. 

The FAA is not adopting Eurocopter/ 

American Eurocopter’s 

recommendations because they are 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90157 

71Section 91.189(g) states that the provisions of 

§ 91.189 do not apply to Category II or Category III 

operations conducted by certificate holders 

operating under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135, or 

holders of MSpecs issued in accordance with part 

91, subpart K. Therefore, § 91.189 only pertains to 

part 91 operators other than those conducting 

operations under part 91, subpart K. 

72Prior to this final rule, a pilot operating an 

aircraft on a Category II or Category III approach 

that requires the use of a DA/DH could not continue 

the approach below the authorized DH unless he or 

she had at least one of the visual references listed 

in § 91.189(d)(2) distinctly visible and identifiable 

using natural vision. 

73The FAA notes that all of the equipment 

requirements and airmen certification requirements 

for the conduct of Category II and Category III 

operations will continue to apply when an EFVS is 

used during the conduct of those operations. The 

FAA also notes that an operator intending to use an 

EFVS to descend below DA/DH during the conduct 

of an authorized Category II or Category III 

operation will be required to revise its Category II 

or Category Ill manual specified in § 91.191 to 

reflect the use of EFVS. A person seeking to 

conduct authorized Category II or Category III 

operations where the use of EFVS is necessary to 

conduct those operations will have to be authorized 

by the Administrator. 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA did not propose to change the 

current requirements of § 121.651(d) 

with respect to non-EFVS operations. 

The FAA notes, however, that 

§ 121.651(e) permits a pilot to begin the 

final approach segment of an Area 

Navigation (RNAV) (GPS) approach to 

the published LPV (or other applicable) 

minimums when the visibility is 

reported to be below the visibility 

prescribed by the instrument approach 

procedure when using EFVS as 

specified in that paragraph. 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation 

commented that the FAA did not limit 

the use of EFVS for landing to ‘‘certain 

operators.’’ However, the commenter 

noted that the NPRM would have 

permitted ‘‘certain operators’’ using 

EFVS-equipped aircraft to dispatch, 

release, or takeoff under IFR, and to 

initiate and continue an approach, when 

the destination airport weather was 

below authorized visibility minimums 

for the runway of intended landing. 

Gulfstream commented that the FAA’s 

use of the term ‘‘certain operators’’ 

makes it appear as if dispatch and 

takeoff using EFVS is restricted. It 

further stated that if this restriction 

applies to some operators and not 

others, the rationale for the distinction 

should be provided. 

The term ‘‘certain operators’’ means 

persons conducting EFVS operations 

under part 121, 125, or 135 whose 

operations are subject to specific rules 

governing the dispatch, release, or 

takeoff of aircraft under IFR. Prior to 

this final rule, regulations prohibited 

these operators from dispatching, 

releasing, or initiating a flight under IFR 

when the reported or forecast visibility 

at the destination airport was below 

authorized minimums. Regulations also 

prohibited these operators from 

initiating or continuing an approach 

when the destination airport visibility 

was below authorized minimums. The 

FAA did not intend the term ‘‘certain 

operators’’ to imply that additional 

restrictions would be imposed upon 

individual operators. 

Dassault Aviation noted references 

made by the FAA to the European 

Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) 

reduction of 1⁄3 of the visibility required 

to conduct an approach using EFVS in 

EASA member states. Dassault Aviation 

requested that the FAA articulate its 

position with respect to this means of 

calculating visibility minimums for 

EFVS operations. The FAA 

acknowledges that EASA uses a 

different method to permit operators to 

conduct EFVS operations. However, this 

rulemaking only addresses EFVS 

operations that are subject to FAA 

regulations. 

Rockwell Collins asked whether the 

FAA and EASA will attempt to 

harmonize EFVS approved capabilities 

and requirements in the future. In its 

comment, Rockwell Collins referred to 

differences between FAA and EASA 

regulations such as the requirements 

applicable to beginning an approach 

when the reported visibility is less than 

the visibility specified in the instrument 

approach procedure to be flown. 

The FAA participates on several 

international committees that are tasked 

with addressing advanced vision system 

operations. Every attempt is made to 

harmonize those operations; however, 

differences in underlying operational 

concepts and existing regulations may 

preclude full harmonization of EFVS 

rules. 

G. Revisions to Category II and III 

General Operating Rules To Permit the 

Use of an EFVS (§ 91.189) 

Section 91.189 contains the general 

operating rules for Category II and 

Category III operations.71 As originally 

proposed, § 91.189(d) now permits a 

pilot to use an EFVS in lieu of natural 

vision to identify the visual references 

required for descent below the 

authorized DH on a Category II or III 

approach. A pilot conducting a Category 

II or III approach in accordance with 

§ 91.189(d) must comply with either the 

provisions of that paragraph for 

identifying required visual references 

using natural vision or with the 

provisions of § 91.176 for identifying 

required visual references using EFVS.72

Also as originally proposed, § 91.189(e) 

now permits a pilot operating an aircraft 

in a Category II or III approach to 

continue the approach below the 

authorized DA/DH provided the 

conditions specified in § 91.176 are 

met.73

Thales commented that the revisions 

to § 91.189(d) are confusing when 

considering how an EFVS might be used 

during Category III operations. It stated 

that the amendments are applicable to 

Category II operations because the DH is 

at 100 feet, but for Category III 

operations where the DH is less than 

100 feet, Thales believes that the rule 

should address this segment of the 

approach. 

The FAA disagrees that the regulation 

should specifically address the use of 

EFVS during Category III approaches. 

Rather, the FAA is revising the 

applicable portions of § 91.189 to align 

it with § 91.176, which facilitates the 

possible future use of authorized EFVS 

operations during authorized Category II 

or Category III operations. In 

§ 91.189(d), the FAA is amending the 

regulations for part 91 operators (except 

for part 91, subpart K operators) to 

permit them to use an EFVS in lieu of 

natural vision to identify the required 

visual references. Under this rule, 

§ 91.189(e) now permits a pilot 

operating an aircraft on a Category II or 

III approach to continue the approach 

below the authorized DA/DH provided 

the conditions specified in § 91.176 are 

met. The FAA notes that it authorizes 

Category II or Category III operations 

through an operator’s OpSpec, MSpec, 

or LOA. Therefore, an operator who 

wishes to conduct an EFVS operation 

during an authorized Category II or 

Category III operation may only do so in 

accordance with an OpSpec, MSpec, or 

LOA. The FAA is also adding 

paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (b)(2)(x) to 

§ 91.176 to clarify the requirement for 

an authorization to conduct an EFVS 

operation during an authorized Category 

II or Category III operation. The FAA 

notes that it will develop authorizations 

and guidance to support future EFVS 

operations. 

H. Pilot Compartment View Rules and 

Airworthiness Standards for Vision 

Systems With Transparent Displays 

Located in the Pilot’s Outside Field of 

View (§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 

29.773) 

Sections 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 

29.773 specify the requirements and 

conditions under which the pilot 

compartment must provide an 

extensive, clear, and undistorted view to 

the pilot for safe operation of the aircraft 

within its operating limitations. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Additionally, the regulations require 

that the pilot compartment be free of 

glare and reflection that could interfere 

with the normal duties of the minimum 

flightcrew. 

When these rules were originally 

issued, the FAA did not anticipate the 

development of vision systems with 

transparent displays that could 

significantly enhance, or even substitute 

for, a pilot’s natural vision. Vision 

systems are used to display an image of 

the external scene to the flightcrew. For 

over a decade, the FAA has certified 

vision systems for transport category 

aircraft that have head up displays. 

However, prior to this final rule, the 

airworthiness standards governing the 

pilot compartment view set forth in 

§ 25.773 were inadequate to address the 

novel or unusual design features of 

these systems. Therefore, the FAA 

issued special conditions under § 21.16 

to provide airworthiness standards, 

which were used to enable the 

installation of vision systems that met a 

level of safety equivalent to that 

established by the regulations. Special 

conditions were issued to each 

applicant, because special conditions 

only apply to individual certification 

projects. However, for consistency, the 

FAA attempted to standardize these 

special conditions to the maximum 

extent possible. With over fourteen 

years of experience, the process of 

developing special conditions for vision 

systems has become routine, and 

operational experience has shown that 

the certification requirements set forth 

in the special conditions have resulted 

in safe and effective vision system 

operations. 

Based on the experience gained by the 

FAA in developing special conditions, 

the FAA is establishing airworthiness 

standards for vision systems with 

transparent displays located in the 

pilot’s outside view for airplanes and 

rotorcraft. This will provide industry 

with known requirements for the 

certification of these systems and 

eliminate the costs resulting from the 

process of issuing special conditions. 

Accordingly, the FAA is amending 

§§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 to 

include the general requirements that 

were previously contained in special 

conditions. In recognition of the rapid 

development of vision system 

technology, these amendments permit 

the certification of a wide range of 

current and future vision systems, such 

as an EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS, and they 

address display methods other than a 

HUD, such as head mounted displays or 

other types of head up presentations. 

1. Vision Systems and Display Methods 

Addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, 

and 29.773 

Under §§ 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 

27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2), when the 

vision system displays imagery and any 

symbology referenced to the imagery 

and outside scene topography, 

including attitude symbology, FPV, and 

FPARC, that imagery and symbology 

must be aligned with, and scaled to, the 

external scene. This requirement marks 

a slight change from the NPRM where 

the proposed rule would have required 

the vision system to continuously 

display the imagery, attitude symbology, 

FPV, FPARC, and other cues, which are 

referenced to the imagery and external 

scene topography. 

Thales commented that the proposed 

airworthiness standards would have 

required the FPARC to be permanently 

displayed along with the EFVS imagery. 

Thales stated that there are phases of 

flight where this symbology may not be 

necessary. It suggested the FAA require, 

‘‘flight path angle reference cue when 

necessary.’’ Airbus submitted a similar 

comment, stating that § 25.773(e)(2) 

should provide for presenting a reduced 

set of aircraft flight information and 

flight symbology on the HUD or other 

equivalent display. It stated that the 

declutter mode should be allowed to 

preserve, or not interfere with, the EFVS 

image and outside view. Airbus’s 

comment also applied to § 23.773(c)(2) 

and could have necessitated revisions to 

§ 91.175(m) as well. Airbus proposed 

that § 25.773(e)(2) should permit the 

display of some cues to be removed 

depending on the flown phase. 

The FAA agrees that the airworthiness 

standards should not require the 

continuous display of specific 

symbology, including the FPARC, in all 

phases of flight. The FAA’s intent was 

not to require the display of any EFVS 

symbology or imagery in the 

airworthiness rules as these rules also 

address transparent display surfaces for 

systems other than EFVS. Instead, the 

FAA intended to identify those visually 

displayed elements, such as imagery 

and earth-referenced symbology, which 

need to be conformal—that is, scaled to 

and aligned with the outside view. 

Accordingly, the regulations do not 

require the continuous display of 

specific symbology. 

However, the FAA does not agree that 

it should revise the operating 

requirements in § 91.175(m), which 

have been moved to § 91.176. The 

operating rules require specific 

information to be displayed to the pilot. 

The FAA notes, however, that EFVS 

typically have declutter modes available 

to the pilot that provide a reduced set 

of information when it is necessary for 

the safe conduct of the flight. 

Eurocopter and American Eurocopter 

commented that the airworthiness 

certification rules should be more 

specific about which types of vision 

systems they address. It stated that the 

regulations were specific to EFVS and 

not to other vision systems that might be 

certified under these regulations. The 

FAA agrees with the commenter that the 

rule language, as proposed, would have 

required the continuous display of 

symbology and imagery that was 

applicable only to EFVS and not to 

other vision systems that might be 

certified under these regulations. The 

airworthiness requirements of §§ 23.773, 

25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 apply to any 

vision system such as an EFVS, EVS, 

SVS, or CVS that uses a transparent 

display surface, such as a head up 

display, head mounted display, or other 

equivalent display, that is located in the 

pilot’s outside field of view. 

Accordingly, the FAA is not requiring 

the continuous display of EFVS 

symbology and imagery in the 

airworthiness standards applicable to 

pilot compartment view. Sections 

91.176(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), however, 

include specific equipment 

requirements that address the 

presentation of sensor imagery, aircraft 

flight information, and flight symbology 

for the conduct of EFVS operations. 

Honeywell commented that the FAA 

should apply the airworthiness 

standards to all vision systems. It 

believes that applying the standards to 

all vision systems would potentially 

ease certification delays and provide a 

clear path to certification for proven 

technology that meets specified 

performance requirements. The FAA 

agrees and notes that the airworthiness 

standards in §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773, 

and 29.773 already address all vision 

systems with a transparent display 

surface located in the pilot’s outside 

field of view, such as a head up display, 

head mounted display, or other 

equivalent display. The FAA also notes 

that AC 20–167A provides the means of 

compliance for certifying a vision 

system with a transparent display 

surface located in the pilot’s outside 

field of view. 

Airbus asked if the FAA would revise 

the pilot compartment view 

requirements to apply to HDD vision 

systems. GAMA commented that the 

NPRM references ‘‘vision systems’’ in 

several locations, which seem to 

describe HUD-based systems. GAMA 

was concerned that the use of the term 

‘‘vision systems’’ may negatively impact 

stand-alone head down systems, such as 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90159 

Synthetic Vision Systems, common in 

many general aviation aircraft. GAMA 

recommended that the FAA review its 

use of the term ‘‘vision system’’ and 

replace it with the term ‘‘Enhanced 

Flight Vision System,’’ as defined in 

§ 1.1. 

The FAA disagrees with GAMA. The 

FAA used the term ‘‘vision system’’ to 

include any EVS, EFVS, SVS, or CVS 

that uses a transparent display surface 

located in the pilot’s outside field of 

view, such as a head up-display, head 

mounted display, or other equivalent 

display. The certification regulations in 

this rule do not apply to other vision 

systems that have only a head down 

display. Accordingly, the FAA is not 

revising these requirements to include 

HDDs. 

Cessna Aircraft Company commented 

that the proposed certification rules 

pertaining to vision systems were too 

general and did not include all of the 

requirements of the operating rules. It 

suggested aligning the requirements of 

§§ 23.773(c), 25.773(e), 27.773(c) and 

29.773(c) with the operating rules in 

terms of features and functions that are 

required to meet the rule, or invoke 

them by reference. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter. Sections 23.773(c), 

25.773(e), 27.773(c), and 29.773(c) 

contain airworthiness requirements 

related to providing a safe pilot 

compartment view, not requirements 

that are specific to meeting operating 

rules. The airworthiness standards in 

these sections apply to all vision 

systems with transparent display 

surfaces located in the pilot’s outside 

field of view. Not all of these vision 

systems may be used for EFVS 

operations. The FAA is therefore 

including specific equipment 

requirements in § 91.176 for EFVS 

operations. AC 20–167A contains a 

means of compliance for EFVS, EVS, 

SVS, and CVS and provides guidance 

material on features and functions 

required by the rule. 

2. Pilot’s Outside View—Terminology 

and Compensation for Interference 

Sections 23.773(c)(1), 25.773(e)(1), 

27.773(c)(1), and 29.773(c)(1) require 

the vision system display to compensate 

for interference with the pilot’s outside 

field of view such that the combination 

of what is visible in the display and 

what remains visible through and 

around it enables the pilot using the 

vision system to perform the actions 

necessary for the operation of the 

aircraft as safely and effectively as he or 

she would without a vision system. The 

terminology in these requirements 

differs slightly from the NPRM, which 

used the term ‘‘pilot’s outside view,’’ 

rather than ‘‘field of view.’’ 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation 

commented that the term ‘‘pilot’s 

outside view’’ was unclear. The FAA 

agrees and is adopting the term ‘‘pilot’s 

outside field of view’’ to refer to what 

is visible to the pilot from the pilot 

compartment through the windows of 

the flight deck looking out, primarily 

forward of the aircraft, but not limited 

to the forward field of view. 

Elbit Systems of America commented 

that the FAA should either revise or not 

adopt the requirement of §§ 23.773(c)(1), 

25.773(e)(1), 27.773(c)(1), and 

29.773(c)(1), specifying that a vision 

system must compensate for 

interference with the pilot’s outside 

view because it believes the requirement 

is ambiguous and requires clarification. 

The FAA disagrees and is adopting the 

requirement that the vision system 

display must compensate for the visual 

interference it may cause. It may 

compensate by providing visual content 

on the display and by providing EFVS 

controls that allow the pilot to use 

sensor imagery safely in a variety of 

lighting conditions. While it is in 

operation, the vision system must 

compensate for interference such that 

the combination of what is visible in the 

display and what remains visible 

through and around it enables the pilot 

to perform those maneuvers and 

procedures necessary for the safe 

operation of the aircraft. The rule 

provides the performance requirements 

for the system. AC 20–167A clarifies 

how EFVS may comply with this 

requirement. 

3. Undistorted View Requirements 

Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 

27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) state that 

the pilot’s view of the external scene 

may not be distorted by the transparent 

display surface or the vision system 

imagery. This differs slightly from what 

the FAA proposed based on concerns 

raised by commenters. 

Boeing commented that the term 

‘‘undistorted’’ in proposed § 25.773(e)(2) 

was not defined in the NPRM. Boeing 

asserted the term ‘‘undistorted’’ was 

subjective and that an applicant needs 

quantitative standards for certification 

to ensure the interpretation of the term 

is consistent and to ensure the applicant 

knows how to comply with the 

requirement. Boeing noted that the FAA 

could address this term in AC 20–167, 

SAE ARP–5288, or some other 

airworthiness standards document but 

asserted that a clear definition and 

means of compliance was necessary. 

Crew Systems commented that the 

requirement for the display to provide 

an ‘‘undistorted view of the external 

scene’’ was excessive as it is not 

possible to have a see-through panel 

with no distortion, and suggested that 

the FAA require that the level of 

distortion could not interfere with the 

pilot’s ability to control the aircraft 

trajectory with reference to the scene 

presented. 

Elbit Systems of America stated that 

‘‘an undistorted view of the external 

scene’’ should be consistent with other 

regulatory guidance. Elbit Systems 

contended that all optical systems have 

some allowable optical distortion levels 

and that it is not possible to produce a 

vision system that provides an 

undistorted view. Elbit pointed out that 

AC 20–167A allows for optical 

distortion, and referred to Section 

4.5(c)(4)(h)(iv), which states optical 

distortion should be 5 percent or less 

across the minimal field of regard and 

no greater than 8 percent outside the 

minimal field of regard. Elbit believes 

the FAA should allow for some inherent 

optical distortion. 

Based on these comments, the FAA is 

revising the first sentence of 

§§ 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 

27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) to require 

that, ‘‘The pilot’s view of the external 

scene may not be distorted by the 

transparent display surface or by the 

vision system imagery.’’ The FAA 

believes that this clarifies the intent of 

the rule. While any see-through display 

may have some distortion, similar to the 

window panels in the flight deck of the 

aircraft, such distortion must be 

practically imperceptible to the pilot’s 

eyes and create no adverse misleading 

effects on the pilot’s view. The level of 

distortion should not interfere with or 

adversely affect the pilot’s visual task 

performance. This requirement is an 

extension of the requirement in 

§ 25.773(a)(1) that the pilot’s view be 

sufficiently undistorted. AC 20–167A 

sets forth an acceptable means of 

complying with requirements applicable 

to optical distortion, along with AC 25– 

11B, appendix F. 

4. Alignment of Vision System Cues and 

Head Mounted Display (HMD) 

Considerations 

Sections 23.773(c)(2), 25.773(e)(2), 

27.773(c)(2), and 29.773(c)(2) require 

that, when the vision system displays 

imagery and any symbology referenced 

to the imagery and outside scene 

topography, they must be aligned with, 

and scaled to, the external scene. 

Crew Systems commented that a 

vision system with a transparent display 

surface requires alignment of the vision 

system cues with the external scene. It 

also stated that these operations require 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90160 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

74A fail operational system is a system capable 

of completing the specified phases of an operation 

following the failure of any single system 

component after passing a point designated by the 

applicable safety analysis (e.g., Alert Height). 

a high degree of reliability and integrity, 

and that the proposal should include 

some mention of the effect of 

misalignment of the image with 

reference to the real world. In particular, 

the use of head mounted displays will 

require a precise alignment which in 

turn will place demands on the head 

tracker system. The commenter thought 

the rules should discuss equipment, 

systems, and installation requirements 

(§§ 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 

29.1309) as they apply to head tracker 

systems. The commenter also contended 

that a head tracker system should be fail 

operational,74 which would impose 

more stringent requirements than have 

been required to date. 

The FAA agrees with the safety intent 

of the comment. Image alignment 

should not interfere with or adversely 

affect the pilot’s visual task 

performance. While all optical systems 

have some allowable optical distortion 

levels, the level of distortion cannot 

interfere with the pilot’s ability to 

control the aircraft trajectory with 

reference to the real world. For further 

discussion on distortion, see the FAA’s 

disposition of comments above in 

section III.H.3 of the preamble. 

With respect to Crew Systems 

comments on head tracker systems, the 

FAA has not yet developed detailed 

criteria for head worn displays (HWD), 

of which the head tracker is a 

component. As head wearable display 

technology improves, AC 20–167A, and 

any subsequent revision, may contain 

the means of compliance. The FAA has 

tasked the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) with developing an 

aerospace standard for head wearable 

display performance criteria, which the 

FAA will consider including in the 

advisory circular guidance criteria. 

Therefore, any equipment, system, and 

installation criteria for a fail operational 

head tracker system would be included 

in airworthiness and operational 

guidance and not primarily in the pilot 

compartment view regulations. 

The Helicopter Association 

International commented that the rule 

should address head mounted display 

(HMD) head tracker integrity to avoid 

potential misleading display of imagery 

or symbology resulting from head 

tracker misalignment. 

The FAA does not agree to explicitly 

address HMD head tracker integrity in 

the rule. The performance based 

airworthiness standards of §§ 23.773, 

25.773, 27.773, and 29.773 already 

address the commenter’s concerns. 

While no HMD installation has been 

approved by the FAA, nor a complete 

set of airworthiness criteria established, 

the FAA does expect to develop 

appropriate means of compliance with 

applicable regulatory requirements in 

the future. As head-mounted or headworn displays are developed for use in 

vision system operations, the FAA will 

develop specific guidance to assist in 

compliance. 

ALPA commented that the rule 

requires an EFVS to provide an 

undistorted view of the external scene, 

yet notes ALPA pilots who have flown 

with EFVS report some EFVS images 

have parallax when viewed from offcenter. Assuming parallax is considered 

a distortion, ALPA recommended that 

the FAA establish and quantify a 

tolerance level regarding the 

acceptability of parallax in EFVS 

landing operations. 

The regulations state that the pilot’s 

view of the external scene may not be 

distorted by the transparent display 

surface or by the vision system imagery. 

Guidance relating to display criteria, 

including parallax, is contained in AC 

20–167A. As set forth in that AC, 

‘‘Parallax should not result in 

significant performance differences in 

safety-related performance parameters 

(e.g., flare height, sink rate, touchdown 

location, groundspeed during landing, 

exit and taxi) between EFVS operations 

and visual operations in the same 

aircraft.’’ AC 20–167A, Section 4–5 

contains additional guidance applicable 

to EFVS displays. 

5. Requirement To Provide a Means of 

Immediate Deactivation and 

Reactivation of Vision System Imagery 

As originally proposed, 

§§ 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 

27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3) require 

that the vision system provide a means 

to allow the pilot using the display to 

immediately deactivate and reactivate 

the vision system imagery, on demand, 

without removing the pilot’s hands from 

the primary flight controls (yoke or 

equivalent) or thrust controls, and for 

rotorcraft, without removing the pilot’s 

hands from the primary flight and 

power controls, such as cyclic and 

collective, or their equivalent. 

FedEx Express, Gulfstream, and Elbit 

Systems of America recommended 

against including this requirement in 

§§ 23.773(c)(3), 25.773(e)(3), 

27.773(c)(3), and 29.773(c)(3). They 

asserted that these regulations pertain to 

pilot compartment view and that it is 

not necessary to include these details 

when they are also addressed in AC 20– 

167. 

The FAA disagrees. The control 

requirement of §§ 23.773(c)(3), 

25.773(e)(3), 27.773(c)(3), and 

29.773(c)(3) protects the pilot’s view of 

the outside scene. If the sensor imagery 

were to obscure the pilot’s view of the 

outside scene, the pilot should have a 

readily available means to immediately 

remove the sensor imagery from the 

HUD. Accordingly, the FAA is requiring 

immediate deactivation and 

reactivation. 

Eurocopter, American Eurocopter, 

and GAMA commented that it is not 

clear whether the requirement applies to 

the imagery, the piloting symbology, or 

both. They stated that the ability to 

deactivate and reactivate the vision 

system imagery and the piloting 

symbology may be affected by the type 

of technology on which the vision 

system is based. As an example, they 

pointed out that if night vision goggles 

(NVGs) were used as an EVS, pilots 

would have to remove their hands from 

the flight controls to raise the goggles 

out of their field-of-view. They 

recommended that the FAA clarify in 

the regulations that only the imagery 

must be deactivated and reactivated on 

demand. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

recommendation. The commenters’ 

concerns have already been addressed 

because the regulations specify that the 

pilot must be able to immediately 

deactivate and reactivate only the vision 

system imagery on demand. The FAA 

notes that applicants should also 

comply with guidance applicable to 

HUD installations. In addition, NVGs 

are not transparent displays and are not 

addressed by §§ 23.773, 25.773, 27.773 

and 29.773. NVGs do not meet the 

definition of an EFVS. Specifically, 

NVGs are not transparent when turned 

off, do not provide the required aircraft 

flight information and flight symbology, 

and are not certified to be used in lieu 

of natural vision to descend below DA/ 

DH or MDA during EFVS operations 

under IFR. NVGs are aids to natural 

vision in VMC, not IMC. 

Airbus commented that the 

certification requirement to provide the 

pilot with a means to immediately 

deactivate and reactivate the vision 

system imagery on demand without 

removing the pilot’s hands from the 

primary flight and power controls is not 

relevant to all operations where an 

EFVS might be used. It suggested that 

this airworthiness certification 

requirement should not apply when a 

pilot uses an EFVS for situation 

awareness only, i.e., when not used to 

conduct operations under § 91.176(a) or 

(b). 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90161 

75The FAA uses issue papers to provide a 

structured means to address certain issues in the 

type certification and type validation processes. 

‘‘Issue Paper Process,’’ AC No. 20–166A (Nov. 6, 

2014). 

76 In a previous rulemaking, ‘‘Area Navigation 

(RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments,’’ 72 FR 

31678 (Jun. 7, 2007), the FAA changed most of the 

references to ‘‘DH or MDA’’ in § 91.175 to ‘‘DA/DH 

or MDA.’’ However, it did not, as intended, change 

the references to ‘‘DH or MDA’’ in § 91.175(l). 

77The requirements of paragraph (l) of § 91.175 

will expire on March 13, 2018. Beginning on March 

13, 2018, a person conducting an EFVS operation 

to 100 feet above the TDZE must comply with the 

requirements of § 91.176. Therefore, effective March 

13, 2018, the introductory text of § 91.175(c) will be 

revised to reference only § 91.176. 

78The requirements in paragraph (d)(2) were 

originally proposed as revisions to current 

paragraph (d)(1). 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter’s proposed exception. 

Providing the pilot a means to 

immediately deactivate and reactivate 

the vision system imagery on demand 

without removing the pilot’s hands from 

the primary flight and power controls is 

a minimum requirement regardless of 

whether the EFVS is being used for 

situation awareness or to conduct an 

EFVS operation. Because there are times 

when a pilot may need to quickly 

remove or restore the sensor imagery 

during a critical phase of flight, it is 

essential for the pilot to be able to 

quickly remove or restore the vision 

system imagery on demand without 

removing his or her hands from the 

primary flight and power controls. This 

requirement, therefore, protects the 

pilot’s view of the outside scene and 

applies to all vision systems with a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view. 

6. Vision Systems and Requirements 

Applicable to Duties and Maneuvers 

Sections 25.773(e) and 29.773(c) state 

that a vision system with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view, such as a head-up 

display, head-mounted display, or other 

equivalent display, must meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(4) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4), respectively, in 

nonprecipitation and precipitation 

conditions. These requirements differ 

slightly from the NPRM based on a 

comment from Sierra Nevada 

Corporation. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation 

commented that §§ 25.773(e)(1) and 

(e)(4) and §§ 29.773(c)(1) and (c)(4) 

apply to the duties and maneuvers of 

§§ 25.773(a) and 29.773(a), which are 

limited to nonprecipitation conditions. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation thought it 

reasonable that the requirements would 

also apply during precipitation 

conditions. Sierra Nevada Corporation 

proposed that the requirements apply in 

any precipitation and lighting 

conditions — day or night—in which 

the EFVS is to be certified. 

The FAA agrees that the requirements 

should apply in both precipitation and 

nonprecipitation conditions. 

Accordingly, the FAA is revising the 

introductory language in §§ 25.773(e) 

and 29.773(c) to address both 

precipitation and nonprecipitation 

conditions. Lighting, however, is 

addressed in other airworthiness 

standards. 

7. Issue Papers for HUD, EFVS, EVS, 

SVS and CVS Installations 

Rockwell Collins commented that 

FAA vision system issue papers 75 have 

identified unique EFVS issues related to 

system operation and safety, and 

inquired whether these issue papers 

will also be eliminated based on the 

new airworthiness requirements for 

vision systems in the rule and 

associated advisory circulars. 

The FAA used HUD issue papers for 

general means of compliance with part 

25 and for special conditions related to 

pilot compartment view. The HUD 

installation means of compliance issue 

papers are no longer necessary now that 

AC 25–11, Revision B was published in 

October 2014. AC 20–167A is used as 

the primary means of compliance for 

installations of EFVS, EVS, SVS and 

CVS. The special conditions for display 

of vision system video on the HUD will 

no longer be necessary after this final 

rule becomes effective. However, an 

issue paper for dual-HUD installations 

may still be used to address means of 

compliance with occupant safety 

regulations, such as §§ 25.562 and 

25.785, until a new policy statement is 

published to address this topic. 

8. Head Up Display (HUD) Installation 

and Bird Strike Requirements 

Crew Systems commented that the 

FAA should explicitly require a fixed 

head up display combiner to meet the 

bird strike requirements of § 25.775. 

The FAA disagrees. Section 25.775 

addresses design and construction 

requirements for windshields and 

windows. These requirements provide 

an appropriate level of safety against the 

hazard of a bird strike, and additional 

requirements applicable to HUD 

installation would not provide any 

additional safety benefit. 

I. Related and Conforming Amendments 

(§§ 91.175, 91.905, and 135.225) 

The FAA did not receive any 

comments on the related and 

conforming amendments it proposed in 

the NPRM. The FAA is therefore 

adopting the related amendments as 

originally proposed. However, because 

operators may continue to comply with 

§ 91.175(l) prior to March 13, 2018, the 

FAA is not adopting the conforming 

amendments it originally proposed to 

§ 91.175. Instead, the FAA is amending 

§ 91.175 to include references to both 

§ 91.175(l) and § 91.176 until March 13, 

2018. The revisions to § 91.175 are 

discussed in more detail below. 

In § 91.175(c)(3)(vi), the FAA is 

revising the term ‘‘visual approach slope 

indicator’’ to read ‘‘the visual glideslope 

indicator,’’ because the term ‘‘visual 

approach slope indicator’’ is overly 

restrictive. 

In § 91.176(b), which contains the 

regulations that were moved from 

§ 91.175(l), the FAA is revising ‘‘DH or 

MDA’’ to read ‘‘DA/DH or MDA’’ to 

correct an inadvertent omission that 

occurred in a previous rulemaking.76

The FAA is revising § 91.905 to 

include § 91.176 as a rule subject to 

waiver. Section 91.175 was listed as one 

of the rules in § 91.905 that was subject 

to waiver, and the provisions applicable 

to EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE were moved from § 91.175(l) and 

(m) to § 91.176. Section 91.176 also 

contains regulatory provisions 

applicable to EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. As the FAA has 

already permitted EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the TDZE to be subject 

to waiver, the FAA is permitting the 

regulations applicable to EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout 

also to be subject to waiver. 

The FAA is revising the introductory 

text of § 91.175(c) to refer to both 

paragraph (l) of § 91.175 and § 91.176 

because a person conducting an EFVS 

operation to 100 feet above the TDZE 

may comply with either the 

requirements specified in § 91.175(l) or 

§ 91.176(b) prior to March 13, 2018.77

Additionally, § 91.175(d)(1), which 

references § 91.175(l), will remain in the 

14 CFR until March 13, 2018. The FAA 

is re-designating § 91.175(d)(2) as (d)(3) 

and is adding a new paragraph (d)(2).78

New paragraph (d)(2) references 

§ 91.176 and refers to paragraphs 

(a)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iii) of § 91.176, 

which contain the visual references 

required for descent below 100 feet 

above the TDZE for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout and EFVS 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90162 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

79Effective March 13, 2018, the FAA will remove 

paragraph (d)(1) and re-designate paragraphs (d)(2) 

and (d)(3) as (d)(1) and (d)(2). 

80Effective March 13, 2018, paragraph (e)(1) will 

be revised to reference only § 91.176. 

81Effective March 13, 2018, paragraphs (l) and 

(m) of § 91.175 will expire and paragraph (n) will 

be removed from § 91.175. 

82Legal Interpretation, Letter to Mr. Phillip 

Kelsey from Mark W. Bury, Acting Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (September 20, 2013). 

83Airworthiness and certification criteria to 

support EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout 

in visibilities as low as RVR 1,000 feet were 

developed through FAA and industry participation 

on RTCA Special Committee 213 (SC–213). RTCA 

SC–213 was tasked with developing minimum 

aviation system performance standards (MASPS) for 

both EFVS operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

and EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. 

The FAA incorporated MASPS for EFVS operations 

to 100 feet above the TDZE into AC 20–167, 

Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision 

System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision 

System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System 

Equipment. Because the airworthiness requirements 

to support EFVS operations in very low visibilities 

would be different than those conducted in a higher 

visibility range, SC–213 separated the MASPS for 

touchdown and rollout operations into two 

activities—MASPS for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout down to RVR 1,000 feet and 

MASPS for EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout down to RVR 300 feet. The FAA has revised 

AC 20–167 to incorporate MASPS for EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout down to RVR 

1,000 feet and published them in AC 20–167A. 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE, 

respectively.79

The FAA is also revising paragraph 

(e)(1) of § 91.175 so that it references 

both paragraph (l) of that section and 

§ 91.176.80

Furthermore, as discussed in section 

III.E.5.d of this preamble, the FAA is 

adding paragraph (n) to § 91.175 to 

provide a transition period for operators 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE.81

The FAA is also revising § 135.225, 

which prescribes IFR takeoff, approach, 

and landing minimums, to correct a 

drafting error that occurred when the 

2004 EFVS final rule was adopted. This 

revision was not proposed in the NPRM. 

The 2004 EFVS final rule, which made 

revisions to § 135.225, did not account 

for changes made to that section by 

‘‘Regulation of Fractional Aircraft 

Ownership Programs and On-Demand 

Operations’’ (Ownership and OnDemand), a final rule published in 

September 2003. 68 FR 54520. In 

Ownership and On-Demand, the FAA 

established the concept of ‘‘eligible ondemand operations’’ in part 135. This 

rule amended § 135.225 to allow eligible 

on-demand operations to conduct 

instrument approach procedures to 

airports without weather reporting 

facilities. Structurally, this exception 

was added as paragraph (b), existing 

paragraph (b) became paragraph (c), and 

(c) became (d). Because the paragraphs 

shifted down a letter, the cross reference 

in new § 135.225(d) was changed from 

(b) to (c). In January 2004, the FAA 

again amended § 135.225 when the 

agency published the EFVS final rule. 

The FAA intended in that rule to clarify 

the language pertaining to weather 

minimums on the final approach 

segment—that is, the rule text that was 

shifted from paragraph (c) to paragraph 

(d) by the September 2003 rule. 

However, the agency did not revise the 

final EFVS rule document to reflect that 

the paragraph designation had changed 

as a result of the September 2003 rule. 

The EFVS rule replaced paragraph (c) 

instead of the intended paragraph (d) 

creating two paragraphs in the section 

on weather minimums during the final 

approach segment and deleting the 

paragraph establishing what the weather 

must be to begin the final approach 

segment of an instrument approach. An 

FAA legal interpretation dated 

September 20, 2013, concluded that the 

current rule language was a result of a 

drafting error that arose because two 

final rules were proceeding close in 

time and the second rule did not 

account for changes made to § 135.225 

by the first rule.82 The agency did not 

intend for paragraphs (c) and (d) to 

apply to instrument approaches 

initiated using the exception given to 

eligible on-demand operations in 

paragraph (b). Accordingly, the FAA is 

now deleting paragraph (d), revising and 

re-designating current paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d), and adding new 

paragraph (c). 

J. Implementation 

As originally proposed, for initial 

implementation, the FAA is authorizing 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout in visibilities as low as RVR 

1,000 feet.83 Several commenters raised 

concerns about the FAA’s proposed 

implementation. 

FedEx Express (FedEx), Gulfstream, 

GAMA, Elbit Systems of America, 

Honeywell, Sierra Nevada Corporation, 

and RTCA commented that the FAA’s 

statement in the NPRM about the status 

of RTCA DO–341, ‘‘Minimum Aviation 

System Performance Standards 

(MASPS) for an Enhanced Flight Vision 

System to Enable All-Weather 

Approach, Landing, and Rollout to a 

Safe Taxi Speed,’’ needs to be updated. 

They pointed out that DO–341, which 

contains MASPS for an EFVS that 

would support EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout in visibilities 

down to RVR 300 feet, was completed 

and published on September 26, 2012. 

The FAA acknowledges that RTCA 

DO–341 was published on September 

26, 2012, and that it contains industry 

recommendations for an EFVS that 

would support EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout in visibilities 

down to RVR 300 feet. 

FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, Elbit 

Systems of America, and Honeywell 

expressed concern over the FAA’s 

proposal to limit initial implementation 

of EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout to visibilities of no lower than 

RVR 1,000 feet. They requested that the 

FAA clarify that the RVR 1,000 feet 

visibility limitation is a starting point 

for EFVS operations to touchdown, but 

that authorizations to conduct EFVS 

operations in visibilities of less than 

RVR 1,000 feet will be developed when 

EFVS equipment is developed and 

certified that supports operations in 

lower visibility conditions. These 

commenters and Dassault Aviation 

expressed concern over whether, or 

when, AC 20–167A would be revised to 

incorporate the RTCA DO–341 criteria, 

which contains MASPS for an EFVS 

that would support EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout in visibilities 

down to RVR 300 feet. The commenters 

also stated that if there were no plans to 

adopt these criteria, they saw no 

certification path for EFVS equipment 

that could enable touchdown operations 

in visibilities of less than RVR 1,000 

feet, which could limit investment in 

technology and adversely affect the 

benefits of the new EFVS operating rule. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation specifically 

requested that the FAA provide a 

certification path toward lower than 

1,000 RVR. 

The FAA’s statement in the notice 

that it proposed to limit initial 

implementation of EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout to visibilities of 

no lower than RVR 1,000 feet was not 

intended to be an end point for EFVS 

authorizations. The FAA fully expects 

to develop authorizations and enable a 

certification path for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout in less than RVR 

1,000 feet conditions as EFVS 

technology is developed that will 

support those operations. The FAA 

recognizes that MASPS, as well as an 

operational concept, have been 

developed through RTCA SC–213 for 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout in less than RVR 1,000 feet 

conditions. The FAA intends to include 

operational and airworthiness 

certification guidance for those EFVS 

operations, based in large part on the 

industry recommendations found in 

DO–341. The FAA will publish 

acceptable methods of compliance for 

these reduced-visibility operations in 

future revisions of AC 20–167. Any 

proponent may propose an alternate 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90163 

method of compliance for an EFVS that 

would support those operations. 

FedEx, Gulfstream, GAMA, and Elbit 

Systems of America noted that there are 

ongoing FAA/ICAO activities to 

harmonize requirements for low 

visibility taxi operations in visibilities 

as low as RVR 300 feet and that those 

activities assume EFVS will be an 

enabler for these operations. These 

commenters felt the FAA should 

provide a statement clarifying its intent 

with respect to low visibility taxi 

operations using EFVS, especially if the 

FAA limits EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout to RVR 1,000 

feet and does not plan to incorporate 

RTCA DO–341 airworthiness criteria 

into AC 20–167A. 

The FAA participates in several 

activities that seek to harmonize vision 

system standards, concepts, and 

practices to the extent practicable. 

Those activities include the HUD, EVS, 

SVS, and CVS Subgroup of the ICAO 

Operations Panel (ICAO HESC), the All 

Weather Operations Harmonization 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(AWOH ARC), and the RTCA SC–213. 

The FAA notes that the EFVS rule does 

not preclude the use of EFVS during 

taxi operations and recognizes that 

using an EFVS can increase situation 

awareness during such operations. 

While there is no regulatory 

requirement in the U.S. for an airport to 

have an approved Low Visibility 

Operation/Surface Movement Guidance 

and Control System Plan when the 

visibility falls below RVR 1,200 feet, the 

FAA supports voluntary development of 

such plans and sees the value in 

harmonizing those operations to the 

extent practicable. 

Dassault Aviation noted that the FAA 

made reference to RTCA DO–315, which 

was published on December 16, 2008. 

Dassault Aviation suggested that the 

FAA refer to RTCA DO–315B, instead. 

The FAA’s intent in referencing RTCA 

DO–315 was to reference the original 

version of the document, which first 

contained the MASPS for EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

The FAA recognizes that DO–315 was 

revised, and at this time, system design 

criteria for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout are contained in 

RTCA DO–315B and DO–341. 

K. Miscellaneous Issues 

In this section, the FAA discusses a 

host of unrelated issues. Some of these 

issues were raised by commenters. 

Others resulted from the FAA’s own 

review of the NPRM. 

1. Minimum Crew Requirements 

Eurocopter and American Eurocopter 

stated that the EFVS operation specified 

in § 91.176(a)(2) implies a new kind of 

operation that could impact minimum 

crew requirements. It recommended that 

the FAA revise §§ 23.1523, 25.1523, 

27.1523, 29.1523, 23.1525, 25.1525, 

27.1525, and 29.1525 to reflect EFVS 

operations. 

The FAA disagrees. The minimum 

flight crew requirements in 14 CFR parts 

23, 25, 27, and 29 are sufficient and 

effective in establishing the minimum 

flightcrew for the aircraft; they do not 

need to be revised to reflect EFVS 

operations. 

2. Failure Modes 

Boeing commented that the rule does 

not adequately address failure modes 

and crew responses. Boeing stated that 

natural vision appears to be a mitigator 

for the loss of EFVS during touchdown 

operations down to RVR 1000 feet. 

Boeing believes it is circular reasoning 

to allow EFVS to replace natural vision, 

and then depend on natural vision in 

the event of an EFVS failure. In 

addition, it believes design assurance 

levels for different technologies, for 

example ILS and EFVS, need to be 

similar to avoid biasing in favor of one 

technology over the other. Boeing 

recommended that availability and 

reliability requirements be specified in 

the rule or in AC 20–167A. Boeing 

stated these clarifications and revisions 

are necessary so that designers and 

operators will know what is expected in 

failure cases. 

The FAA finds such revisions 

unnecessary. The requirements of 

§§ 23.1309, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 

29.1309 apply to failure modes, hazard 

classifications, and failure probabilities. 

AC 20–167A further addresses specific 

system safety considerations. 

The FAA has defined a means of 

compliance in AC 20–167A to use EFVS 

to provide sufficient enhanced flight 

visibility to complete an instrument 

approach and landing in visibility 

conditions as low as RVR 1000 feet. 

Operationally, EFVS may be used to 

meet enhanced flight visibility and 

visual reference requirements for the 

instrument approach as stated in the 

NPRM. When the enhanced flight 

visibility and visual reference 

requirements of the regulations are met, 

descent and operation below the DA/DH 

may continue. However, certification 

applicants should account for failures of 

the EFVS in IMC below DA/DH. 

Generally, as with loss of visibility 

during conventional instrument 

approaches, a pilot may need to do a 

missed approach. 

3. EFVS Equipment and Operational 

Considerations 

ALPA and an individual commented 

that current IR-based EFVSs can take 

several minutes to warm up before they 

are able to be used in EFVS operations, 

and stated that operational guidance 

should account for this delay when an 

EFVS is powered up just prior to 

starting an instrument approach. The 

individual also commented that EFVS 

operations will require a high degree of 

system reliability during adverse 

weather conditions, and that if the EFVS 

were to malfunction close to the ground, 

a potentially unsafe condition could 

exist. The commenters recommended 

that EFVSs should have an in-flight 

checking capability to confirm that the 

system is fully operational prior to 

beginning an instrument approach 

procedure. 

The commenters concerns are already 

addressed in § 61.66 and AC 90–106. 

Section 61.66(a) and (b) specify that 

ground and flight training must address 

preflight and in-flight preparation of 

EFVS equipment for EFVS operations. 

AC 90–106A, Section 5, contains 

guidance applicable to training and 

specifies that pilots should be familiar 

with the warm-up requirements of the 

system, along with other operational 

considerations, crew procedures, and 

crew coordination items. AC 20–167A 

also contains guidance on EFVS system 

performance, including system failure 

notifications. EFVS malfunctions 

detected by the system, which can 

adversely affect the normal operation of 

the EFVS, should be annunciated. At a 

minimum, specific in-flight failure 

messages for sensor failure and frozen 

image should be displayed to the flight 

crew. 

4. Applicability of Previously Collected 

Data or Data Submitted on the Basis of 

Similarity 

In its proposal, the FAA noted that 

under the 2004 EFVS rule, an EFVS 

installed on a U.S.-registered aircraft 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE must be installed on 

that aircraft in accordance with an FAA 

type design approval, namely a type 

certificate, amended type certificate, or 

supplemental type certificate. The FAA 

also stated that an EFVS that is 

currently certified to conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE 

may not meet the airworthiness 

standards necessary to support EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout. 

Section 91.176(a)(1)(i) requires an 

aircraft to be equipped with an operable 

EFVS that meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements. Thus, the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90164 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

84Section 1.1 defines ‘‘civil aircraft’’ as aircraft 

other than public aircraft. Therefore, if a regulation 

applies only to civil aircraft, it does not apply to 

public aircraft. 

FAA will require a similar certification 

process for an EFVS installed on an 

aircraft used in EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. 

Rockwell Collins asked whether 

credit could be given during the 

certification process for previously 

collected data. For example, if video 

data was collected during a previous 

EFVS performance demonstration that 

was conducted to 100 feet above the 

TDZE, could the operator take credit for 

that data with a follow-on 

demonstration that focused on rollout? 

It stated it believes this will be an 

ongoing issue the FAA will need to 

address in a consistent manner. 

The FAA cannot assume that an EFVS 

that was only demonstrated and 

approved for EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the TDZE will also be 

acceptable as a primary system for 

landing and rollout. Flight 

demonstrations specific to EFVS 

operations below 100 feet above the 

TDZE, landing, and rollout will usually 

be necessary. Flight test demonstrations 

will be specifically focused on showing 

compliance with specific requirements 

and criteria; hence, the flight test results 

may not be extrapolated beyond their 

original purposes. EFVS flight test 

demonstrations conducted prior to this 

rulemaking did not attempt to establish 

the ability to use the EFVS for landing 

or rollout. Prior flight testing that 

demonstrated the performance of the 

sensor in coping with the reported 

atmospheric conditions, particularly the 

collection and analysis of data 

comparing enhanced flight visibility to 

flight visibility may offer useful 

information in support of approval of 

the EFVS for landing and rollout. 

However, the EFVS should demonstrate 

that it can be relied on as the primary 

means for operation below 100 feet 

above the TDZE and for the landing and 

rollout. 

CMC commented that certification 

credit for demonstrated EFVS 

performance should be transferable to 

other installations that have the same 

EFVS configuration. CMC pointed out 

that the details of an EFVS installation 

may differ from one installation to 

another, and it suggested that the FAA 

develop a framework for addressing 

these differences. It stated that credit 

transfer from one installation to another 

is not intended to replace all flight tests 

on a new platform or installation. 

Instead, the credit transfer would allow 

for the use of applicable data that was 

previously collected, in addition to 

flight test data on the new platform, to 

form the basis of an EFVS performance 

demonstration. 

CMC asserted that this framework 

would enable EFVS suppliers, aircraft 

manufacturers, and operators to utilize 

previous flight test investments and 

thereby significantly reduce certification 

and performance capability 

demonstration costs. 

The applicant may follow existing 

provisions and practices for establishing 

‘‘similarity’’ of an equipment 

installation from one aircraft to another 

by providing compliance data approved 

for the other aircraft. The FAA will 

follow existing processes to evaluate the 

applicability of data submitted on the 

basis of similarity and recognizes the 

benefit in reducing repetitive 

certification and performance 

demonstration costs. 

However, since EFVS equipment can 

perform differently on dissimilar 

aircraft, data used to show the 

compliance of one installation may not 

be appropriate for use in demonstrating 

the compliance of another installation. 

5. Public Aircraft Operations 

In the 2004 EFVS final rule and 

proposed § 91.176, the FAA did not 

distinguish between civil aircraft 

operations and public aircraft 

operations.84 Thus, both the 2004 EFVS 

final rule and proposed § 91.176 applied 

to public aircraft operations, other than 

the U.S. military. Generally, public 

aircraft operations are not required to 

meet the same certification and 

airworthiness requirements that are 

imposed on civil aircraft. U.S. military 

aircraft generally meet military 

certification and airworthiness 

standards. Because EFVS operations are 

conducted in very low visibilities below 

minimums, the FAA finds that there 

cannot be a distinction among aircraft 

used to conduct EFVS operations in the 

National Airspace System. Each aircraft 

that is used to conduct an EFVS 

operation, regardless of whether the 

operation qualifies as a public aircraft 

operation, must meet the airworthiness 

and certification requirements set forth 

in § 91.176(a) or (b), as applicable to the 

EFVS operation being conducted 

(except U.S. military aircraft). 

Furthermore, each pilot flightcrew 

member conducting an EFVS operation, 

regardless of whether the operation 

qualifies as a public aircraft operation, 

is required to meet the training and 

recent flight experience requirements of 

§ 61.66 (except U.S. military pilots). 

Accordingly, the FAA is adding 

§ 91.176(c) to clarify that public aircraft 

operators who choose to conduct EFVS 

operations under § 91.176(a) or (b) must 

meet the previously stated 

requirements. The FAA recognizes that 

certain public aircraft operators who 

choose to conduct EFVS operations 

under § 91.176 may have aircraft that 

cannot meet the FAA’s certification and 

airworthiness requirements. The FAA 

will consider the ability of these public 

aircraft to conduct EFVS operations on 

a case-by-case basis. 

6. Qualification Requirements for 

Persons Conducting EFVS Operations in 

the United States 

Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii) describes the 

necessary qualifications for persons 

conducting EFVS operations in the 

United States. In the NPRM, proposed 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(vi) would have required, 

just as § 91.175(l)(5)(ii) required, each 

required pilot flightcrew member for a 

foreign person to meet the requirements 

of the civil aviation authority of the 

State of the operator. Section 129.1 

defines ‘‘foreign person’’ as any person 

who is not a citizen of the United States 

and who operates a U.S.-registered 

aircraft in common carriage solely 

outside the United States. The FAA is 

concerned that a broader population 

than that defined by the term ‘‘foreign 

person’’ in § 129.1 will conduct EFVS 

operations in the United States. For 

example, the term ‘‘foreign person’’ 

failed to capture persons acting as 

required pilot flightcrew members for 

foreign air carriers subject to part 129, 

and any persons serving as required 

pilot flightcrew members of foreign 

registered aircraft. The FAA is, 

therefore, revising proposed 

§ 91.176(a)(2)(vii) to more clearly 

identify the categories of persons who 

might conduct EFVS operations in the 

United States, and to ensure that the 

regulation adequately describes the 

necessary qualifications for these 

persons. 

Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(A) now 

requires each person exercising the 

privileges of a U.S. pilot certificate, or 

any person serving as a required pilot 

flightcrew member of a U.S.-registered 

aircraft, to be qualified in accordance 

with part 61, and as applicable, the 

training, testing, and qualification 

provisions of parts 91 subpart K, 121, 

125, or 135 that apply to the operation. 

Section 91.176(a)(2)(vii)(B) now requires 

each person acting as a required pilot 

flightcrew member for a foreign air 

carrier subject to part 129, or any person 

serving as a required pilot flightcrew 

member of a foreign registered aircraft to 

be qualified in accordance with the 

training requirements of the civil 

aviation authority of the State of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90165 

85Airbus also asked what the FAA meant in terms 

of airborne sensor performance requirement. The 

FAA is not responding to this comment because it 

is outside the scope of the regulatory evaluation. 

The FAA reopened the comment period on August 

20, 2015 to allow for comments on the regulatory 

evaluation only. 

86The FAA forecast for active general aviation 

(GA) turbine jets is 2.53% for the period of 2015– 

2027. 

operator for the EFVS operation to be 

conducted. 

7. Economic Comments 

Boeing requested that the FAA 

explain how it established the number 

of aircraft used in the economic analysis 

so that operators can better judge their 

costs. 

In order to estimate the total number 

of affected aircraft for the NPRM, the 

FAA asked original EFVS equipment 

manufacturers and aircraft 

manufacturers for the information. The 

FAA determined the total number of 

EFVS-equipped aircraft based on the 

responses received from those 

manufacturers. The FAA did not obtain 

a future equipment estimate from 

Boeing although the Agency requested 

that Boeing provide the projected 

number of aircraft it plans to equip or 

acquire with EFVS by year from 2012 

onward. Boeing also commented that it 

is unclear in the NPRM whether the 

estimated paperwork burden is per 

airplane, per operator, or fleetwide. It 

stated that it can be deduced by 

subsequent paragraphs, but clarification 

of this issue would avoid confusion and 

lead to a clearer understanding. 

The estimated paperwork burden of 

$86,000 covers the entire fleet of EFVSequipped aircraft. 

An individual stated that this rule 

could provide benefits to student pilots; 

however, one challenge would be 

increased training costs, including EFVS 

training. 

The decision to conduct EFVS 

operations addressed by this rule is 

voluntary and optional. Therefore, this 

rule will not impose costs on a trainee 

who chooses not to conduct EFVS 

operations in the future. Furthermore, 

the FAA believes that student pilots 

typically will not conduct EFVS 

operations during their initial training. 

Airbus commented on the training 

requirement cost in the proposed 

regulatory evaluation. Airbus stated that 

the incremental training cost of $750 per 

pilot does not take into account the 

benefits and the reduced operational 

costs that would result from a dual HUD 

configuration. The FAA did not take 

dual HUD configurations into account 

when estimating the incremental 

training cost of $750 because the FAA 

sought to use a conservative estimate in 

the regulatory evaluation. 

Airbus explained that it cannot 

comment on certification costs because 

Airbus has not yet applied for EFVS 

certification. However, in commenting 

on the benefits section of the proposed 

regulatory evaluation, Airbus asked 

what the FAA expects from an applicant 

in terms of demonstrating that ‘‘missed 

approaches and delayed take-offs’’ are 

minimized.85 The FAA does not expect 

nor require an EFVS operator to 

demonstrate benefits in order to utilize 

extended EFVS capabilities. The FAA 

believes that enhanced EFVS 

capabilities will result in unquantifiable 

benefits, which include the reduction of 

‘‘missed approaches and delayed takeoffs.’’ 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest that readers seeking greater 

details read the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we placed 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify the costs; (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or other private 

sectors by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Parties Potentially Affected by this 

Rulemaking 

• Original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs) producing enhanced flight 

vision systems (EFVS) or other 

vision systems, in accordance with 

parts 23, 25, 27, or 29 

• Persons installing EFVS or other 

vision systems with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view 

• Persons conducting EFVS 

operations under parts 91, 121, 125, 

129, or part 135 

• Persons conducting EFVS training 

Principal Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

• A 10-year period for this analysis is 

used because this period captures 

all significant cost impacts 

• Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of 

Management & Budget, Circular A– 

4, ‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates 

for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs,’’ October 29, 1992, p. 8, 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

circulars/index.html) 

• An average of 4 pilots assigned to 

each EFVS-equipped aircraft 

• OEMs and two operators provided 

the number of EFVS-equipped 

aircraft 

• Operators of some aircraft equipped 

with older EFVS units will not seek 

certification for EFVS to touchdown 

and rollout 

• The estimation of the incremental 

training cost per person is 

approximately $750 based on data 

collected from training centers 

• Certification costs of incremental 

EFVS capabilities to touchdown 

and rollout are approximately $1 

million in the aggregate 

• Aircraft operations over the next 10 

years will grow at about 2.53% per 

year based on the FAA 2015 

forecast (the general aviation 

turbojet, FAA Aerospace Forecast 

Fiscal Years 2015)86. 

Benefits of This Rule 

Since this final rule is voluntary, the 

FAA expects those who choose to 

engage in extended EFVS operations 

will do so only if the expected benefit 

to them exceeds the cost they incur. The 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

87FAA airport infrastructure decisions are 

independent from this analysis. 

final rule will enable expanded EFVS 

operations, which will increase access, 

efficiency and throughput in low 

visibility conditions, and minimize 

potential for missed approaches and 

delayed take-offs. In addition, EFVS 

permits low visibility operations on a 

greater number of approach procedure 

types. Changes in the U.S. aviation 

infrastructure,87 such as the transition 

from incandescent to light-emitting 

diode (LED) approach lights, could 

potentially impact the near term 

benefits for persons using EFVS 

equipment, but may not impact future 

benefits of EFVS equipment designed to 

be interoperable with LEDs. The impact 

on the benefits is undetermined because 

both the infrastructure and EFVS 

capabilities are evolving. Benefits of this 

final rule will be realized by averting 

costs related to interrupted flight 

operations due to low visibility 

resulting in lost passenger time and 

extra fuel consumption. 

Eliminating the requirement to obtain 

a waiver from Flight Standards when 

conducting certain EFVS operations will 

save applicants time for processing 

paperwork. Cost saving of waiver 

elimination is reflected in the FAA’s 

paperwork reduction estimates. 

Revisions to pilot compartment view 

requirements for vision systems with a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view will 

codify the current practice of issuing 

special conditions for each of these 

vision systems by providing industry 

with known requirements for the 

certification of these systems under 

parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. Because the 

revisions to pilot compartment view 

requirements will streamline the 

certification process for these vision 

systems by eliminating the need to issue 

special conditions, the FAA and 

applicants will save the associated time 

and expense. The full extent of these 

benefits has not been determined and 

therefore has not been quantified in this 

analysis. 

Costs of This Rule 

The regulatory costs attributed to the 

requirements are those above and 

beyond the current regulation and 

common practice. The FAA estimates 

compliance costs as the incremental 

differences in costs, resulting from the 

changes in training, equipment and 

certification requirements. Data were 

obtained from EFVS original equipment 

manufacturers, training centers, and two 

operators. The total incremental cost 

attributable to the requirements equals 

nominal training cost ($4.1 million) plus 

the initial certification cost ($1 million). 

The compliance cost of the equipment 

requirements is negligible. The total 

incremental cost of the final rule is 

approximately $5.1 million for the ten 

year period. The present value of that is 

approximately $4.1 million using a 

seven percent discount rate. The 

following table presents the summary of 

the regulatory costs in 2014 dollars 

(nominal value) and present value (PV). 

Cost component Nominal cost 

($ million) 

Present value 

at 7% 

($ million) 

Present value 

at 3% 

($ million) 

Training Cost ............................................................................................................................... $4.1 $3.1 $3.5 

Certification Cost ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 

Equipment Cost ...........................................................................................................................

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5.1 4.1 4.5 

Benefit/Cost Summary 

The total estimated cost of this final 

rule over 10 years is approximately $5.1 

million nominal value or $4.1 million 

present value at a 7% discount rate. The 

annualized cost of this final rule in 

current dollar value is approximately a 

half million dollars. These estimated 

compliance costs will be incurred by 

those operators who want improved 

EFVS capabilities. OEMs are already 

proceeding with efforts to expand EFVS 

capabilities which, by itself, indicate the 

benefits of this final rule will likely 

exceed the costs. The revisions to pilot 

compartment view requirements for 

vision systems with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view will not impose 

additional costs from those currently 

incurred using the special conditions 

process. The FAA believes the final rule 

will have benefits exceeding costs based 

on the likelihood that OEMs and 

operators will voluntarily incur the 

costs of the final rule in order to realize 

expected benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

As stated in the initial regulatory 

flexibility determination, the FAA 

expects many small entities will benefit 

from this final rule. The FAA did not 

receive comments on the initial 

regulatory flexibility determination. 

Prior to the final rule, the regulations 

permitted operators to conduct EFVS 

operations to 100 feet above the TDZE. 

The final rule permits operators to use 

an EFVS in lieu of natural vision from 

100 feet above the TDZE to touchdown 

and rollout. Operators under parts 91, 

91 subpart K, 121, 125, and 135 may 

conduct EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout under the final rule. 

Accordingly, the final rule may affect 

firms operating under those parts. The 

SBA size standard as defined in 13 CFR 

121.201, is the largest size that a 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90167 

business (including its subsidiaries and 

affiliates) may be to remain classified as 

a small business by the SBA. The SBA 

size standard in each of the four North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) air transportation 

industries is 1,500 employees. 

We estimate that 982 aircraft are 

currently equipped with EFVS, which 

includes both large and small entities. 

Very few part 121 and part 135 

operators have installed EFVS in their 

aircraft. A few part 91 subpart K, 121, 

or 135 operators have installed EFVS in 

their aircraft. Most of the operators with 

EFVS-equipped aircraft are part 91 

operators (other than part 91 subpart K 

operators). Many part 91 operators are 

small entities. 

For small entities who have been 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE under the old 

regulations, but who choose not to 

conduct EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout, the final rule does not 

impose additional cost. These small 

entities are still eligible to conduct 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE using their old EFVS equipment, 

which has already been certified for 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the 

TDZE. For small entities who have been 

conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet 

above the TDZE under the old 

regulations, but who choose to conduct 

EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout, the final rule will impose no 

additional installation costs because 

most systems installed after 2006 meet 

the requirements for EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. The final rule 

will, however, impose training costs on 

these small entities. We estimate a onetime training cost of $750 per pilot, 

which accounts for the cost of training 

from 100 feet above the TDZE to 

touchdown and rollout. The FAA finds 

that this estimated training cost, even if 

for 4 pilots per aircraft, would not have 

a significant economic impact on the 

small entities affected by the final rule, 

because the equipment flown is valued 

in the tens of millions and these owners 

voluntarily incur these costs. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

above, the FAA certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that the final rule will not 

impose obstacles to foreign commerce, 

as foreign exporters do not have to 

change their current export products to 

the United States; and that the final rule 

will impose the same costs on domestic 

and international entities and thus has 

a neutral trade impact. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This action contains the following 

information collection requirements: 

• Section 61.66 requires pilots to 

keep records of training and recent 

flight experience. 

• Section 91.176(a) requires persons 

conducting operations under part 91 to 

conduct EFVS operations in accordance 

with letters of authorization for the use 

of EFVS. 

Below, we discuss each of these 

information collection requirements in 

more detail. 

The information collections in § 61.66 

are already approved in OMB control 

number 2120–0021. The paperwork 

burden under § 61.66 comprises 

documentation of training, recent flight 

experience, and refresher training. The 

following analyses were conducted 

under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501). If some operators 

eventually choose to conduct EFVS 

operations to touchdown and rollout, 

the provisions of § 61.66 would result in 

a requirement to keep records of 

training, recent flight experience, and 

refresher training. The cost of the 

annualized paperwork burden is 

determined by multiplying the number 

of pilots per EFVS-equipped aircraft 

(four) by the number of EFVS aircraft 

(982) and then by the time of complying 

with the paperwork requirements for 

each pilot. Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations already require 

flight crewmembers to document and 

record training and aeronautical 

experience required to meet recent flight 

experience requirements. 14 CFR 61.51. 

Therefore, the paperwork burden 

resulting from § 61.66 is already 

accounted for in the cost estimate 

contained in OMB control number 

2120–0021. 

For ease of readability, we will 

explain the portion of the total cost 

estimate that pertains to documenting 

and recording EFVS recent flight 

experience. Operators are required to 

log their approaches using EFVS in 6 

months in compliance with the recent 

flight experience requirements of the 

new rule. The action of logging each 

approach in a semiannual frequency can 

be done manually or electronically. We 

estimated the time required to complete 

recordkeeping by flight crewmembers 

would be about 0.10 hours 

semiannually or 0.20 hours annually. 

Assuming 3,928 pilots would be 

affected by the recordkeeping provisions 

of the rule, it would require about 786 

hours of annual paperwork, and 

approximately $86,000 nominal cost at 

the maximum based on the average 

wage rate of $109 for flight 

crewmembers from the FAA Form 41. 

This hourly burden and cost is already 

accounted for under OMB control 

number 2120–0021. 

The information collection in 

§ 91.176(a) expands an existing OMBapproved collection of information that 

is approved under OMB control number 

2120–0005. This collection of 

information governs information that 

the FAA collects in order to assure 

compliance with part 91. The 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements in § 91.176(a) increase the 

burden of this already-existing 

collection of information. Section 

91.176(a) pertains to EFVS operations to 

touchdown and rollout. Except as 

provided in paragraphs 91.176(a)(2)(ix) 

through 91.176(a)(2)(xii), a person 

conducting operations under part 91 

must conduct the operation in 

accordance with a letter of authorization 

for the use of EFVS unless the operation 

is conducted in an aircraft that has been 

issued an experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191 for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations. A person applying to 

the FAA for a letter of authorization 

must submit an application in a form 

and manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. Approximately 38 EFVS 

operators will spend about 0.5 hours 

annually to submit a letter of 

authorization to the FAA. Each 

paperwork hour costs approximately 

$23. Multiplying estimated written 

requests by average hour per request, we 

estimate the total annual paperwork 

burden to be 19 hours. We multiply 19 

hours of paperwork burden by an 

estimated hour wage rate of $23 to 

derive the estimated annual paperwork 

cost burden to be $ 437. As required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has 

submitted this information collection 

requirement to OMB for its review. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. Executive 

Order 13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation, promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

Harmonization. The FAA participates 

on several vision system committees 

and working groups where international 

harmonization of standards, concepts, 

and practices is accomplished to the 

extent practicable. RTCA SC–213 was 

established December 2006 and is 

developing operational concepts and 

MASPS for EFVS, EVS, SVS, and CVS. 

The FAA, industry representatives from 

the United States and other countries, 

and other civil aviation authorities 

participate on this committee. Eurocae 

Work Group 79 is also a joint working 

group with RTCA SC–213. The ICAO 

HESC focuses on developing 

definitions, standards, and guidance 

material pertaining to vision systems for 

ICAO Annex 6, Parts I–III. The FAA is 

a member of the ICAO HESC subgroup 

and actively participates in this 

committee’s activities and output. In 

2012, the FAA established the AWOH 

ARC. Recognizing that significant issues 

exist within the international aviation 

community and regulators regarding 

interoperability and standardization for 

low visibility operations, the FAA 

established the AWOH ARC to identify 

areas where existing criteria and 

guidance are inadequate or nonexistent, 

to develop recommendations for 

implementing new regulatory criteria 

and guidance material needed by all 

stakeholders, and to produce consensus 

positions for global harmonization. In 

addition to other low visibility 

initiatives, the AWOH ARC facilitates 

international understanding of EFVS 

operations and provides 

recommendations for harmonizing those 

operations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How to Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

• Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

• Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://www.faa.

gov/regulations_policies/ or 

• Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9677. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90169 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 23 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and 

symbols. 

14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 27 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic 

control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, 

Aviation safety, Charter flights, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, 

Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

44701. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘EFVS operation’’ in 

alphabetical order and by revising the 

definition for ‘‘Enhanced flight vision 

system (EFVS)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

EFVS operation means an operation 

in which visibility conditions require an 

EFVS to be used in lieu of natural vision 

to perform an approach or landing, 

determine enhanced flight visibility, 

identify required visual references, or 

conduct a rollout. 

Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) 

means an installed aircraft system 

which uses an electronic means to 

provide a display of the forward 

external scene topography (the natural 

or manmade features of a place or region 

especially in a way to show their 

relative positions and elevation) through 

the use of imaging sensors, including 

but not limited to forward-looking 

infrared, millimeter wave radiometry, 

millimeter wave radar, or low-light level 

image intensification. An EFVS includes 

the display element, sensors, computers 

and power supplies, indications, and 

controls. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.2 by adding the 

abbreviation ‘‘VGSI’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols. 

* * * * * 

VGSI means visual glide slope 

indicator. 

* * * * * 

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, 

ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 23 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

44701–44702, 44704. 

■ 5. Amend § 23.773 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 23.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(c) A vision system with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view, such as a head updisplay, head mounted display, or other 

equivalent display, must meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) While the vision system display is 

in operation, it must compensate for 

interference with the pilot’s outside 

field of view such that the combination 

of what is visible in the display and 

what remains visible through and 

around it, enables the pilot to perform 

the maneuvers specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section and the pilot 

compartment to meet the provisions of 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) The pilot’s view of the external 

scene may not be distorted by the 

transparent display surface or by the 

vision system imagery. When the vision 

system displays imagery and any 

symbology referenced to the imagery 

and outside scene topography, 

including attitude symbology, flight 

path vector, and flight path angle 

reference cue, that imagery and 

symbology must be aligned with, and 

scaled to, the external scene. 

(3) The vision system must provide a 

means to allow the pilot using the 

display to immediately deactivate and 

reactivate the vision system imagery, on 

demand, without removing the pilot’s 

hands from the primary flight controls 

or thrust controls. 

(4) When the vision system is not in 

operation it may not restrict the pilot 

from performing the maneuvers 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section and the pilot compartment from 

meeting the provisions of paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 25 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

44701, 44702 and 44704. 

■ 7. Amend § 25.773 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 25.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(e) Vision systems with transparent 

displays. A vision system with a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view, such as 

a head up-display, head mounted 

display, or other equivalent display, 

must meet the following requirements 

in nonprecipitation and precipitation 

conditions: 

(1) While the vision system display is 

in operation, it must compensate for 

interference with the pilot’s outside 

field of view such that the combination 

of what is visible in the display and 

what remains visible through and 

around it, enables the pilot to perform 

the maneuvers and normal duties of 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) The pilot’s view of the external 

scene may not be distorted by the 

transparent display surface or by the 

vision system imagery. When the vision 

system displays imagery or any 

symbology that is referenced to the 

imagery and outside scene topography, 

including attitude symbology, flight 

path vector, and flight path angle 

reference cue, that imagery and 

symbology must be aligned with, and 

scaled to, the external scene. 

(3) The vision system must provide a 

means to allow the pilot using the 

display to immediately deactivate and 

reactivate the vision system imagery, on 

demand, without removing the pilot’s 

hands from the primary flight controls 

or thrust controls. 

(4) When the vision system is not in 

operation it may not restrict the pilot 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

from performing the maneuvers 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or the pilot compartment from 

meeting the provisions of paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY 

ROTORCRAFT 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 27 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

44701–44702, 44704. 

■ 9. Amend § 27.773 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 27.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(c) A vision system with a transparent 

display surface located in the pilot’s 

outside field of view, such as a head updisplay, head mounted display, or other 

equivalent display, must meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) While the vision system display is 

in operation, it must compensate for 

interference with the pilot’s outside 

field of view such that the combination 

of what is visible in the display and 

what remains visible through and 

around it, allows the pilot compartment 

to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (b) of this section. 

(2) The pilot’s view of the external 

scene may not be distorted by the 

transparent display surface or by the 

vision system imagery. When the vision 

system displays imagery or any 

symbology that is referenced to the 

imagery and outside scene topography, 

including attitude symbology, flight 

path vector, and flight path angle 

reference cue, that imagery and 

symbology must be aligned with, and 

scaled to, the external scene. 

(3) The vision system must provide a 

means to allow the pilot using the 

display to immediately deactivate and 

reactivate the vision system imagery, on 

demand, without removing the pilot’s 

hands from the primary flight and 

power controls, or their equivalent. 

(4) When the vision system is not in 

operation it must permit the pilot 

compartment to satisfy the requirements 

of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this 

section. 

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 29 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

44701–44702, 44704. 

■ 11. Amend § 29.773 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 29.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(c) Vision systems with transparent 

displays. A vision system with a 

transparent display surface located in 

the pilot’s outside field of view, such as 

a head up-display, head mounted 

display, or other equivalent display, 

must meet the following requirements 

in nonprecipitation and precipitation 

conditions: 

(1) While the vision system display is 

in operation, it must compensate for 

interference with the pilot’s outside 

field of view such that the combination 

of what is visible in the display and 

what remains visible through and 

around it, allows the pilot compartment 

to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this section. 

(2) The pilot’s view of the external 

scene may not be distorted by the 

transparent display surface or by the 

vision system imagery. When the vision 

system displays imagery or any 

symbology that is referenced to the 

imagery and outside scene topography, 

including attitude symbology, flight 

path vector, and flight path angle 

reference cue, that imagery and 

symbology must be aligned with, and 

scaled to, the external scene. 

(3) The vision system must provide a 

means to allow the pilot using the 

display to immediately deactivate and 

reactivate the vision system imagery, on 

demand, without removing the pilot’s 

hands from the primary flight and 

power controls, or their equivalent. 

(4) When the vision system is not in 

operation it must permit the pilot 

compartment to satisfy the requirements 

of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 13. Amend § 61.57 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in 

command. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) This section does not apply to a 

pilot in command who is employed by 

a part 119 certificate holder authorized 

to conduct operations under part 121 

when the pilot is engaged in a flight 

operation under part 91 or 121 for that 

certificate holder if the pilot in 

command complies with §§ 121.436 and 

121.439 of this chapter. 

(3) This section does not apply to a 

pilot in command who is employed by 

a part 119 certificate holder authorized 

to conduct operations under part 135 

when the pilot is engaged in a flight 

operation under parts 91 or 135 for that 

certificate holder if the pilot in 

command is in compliance with 

§§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Add § 61.66 to read as follows: 

§ 61.66 Enhanced Flight Vision System 

Pilot Requirements 

(a) Ground training. (1) Except as 

provided under paragraphs (f) and (h) of 

this section, no person may manipulate 

the controls of an aircraft or act as pilot 

in command of an aircraft during an 

EFVS operation conducted under 

§ 91.176(a) or (b) of this chapter, or 

serve as a required pilot flightcrew 

member during an EFVS operation 

conducted under § 91.176(a) of this 

chapter, unless that person— 

(i) Receives and logs ground training 

under a training program approved by 

the Administrator; and 

(ii) Obtains a logbook or training 

record endorsement from an authorized 

training provider certifying the person 

satisfactorily completed the ground 

training appropriate to the category of 

aircraft for which the person is seeking 

the EFVS privilege. 

(2) The ground training must include 

the following subjects: 

(i) Those portions of this chapter that 

relate to EFVS flight operations and 

limitations, including the Airplane 

Flight Manual or Rotorcraft Flight 

Manual limitations; 

(ii) EFVS sensor imagery, required 

aircraft flight information, and flight 

symbology; 

(iii) EFVS display, controls, modes, 

features, symbology, annunciations, and 

associated systems and components; 

(iv) EFVS sensor performance, sensor 

limitations, scene interpretation, visual 

anomalies, and other visual effects; 

(v) Preflight planning and operational 

considerations associated with using 

EFVS during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, 

descent and landing phases of flight, 

including the use of EFVS for 

instrument approaches, operating below 

DA/DH or MDA, executing missed 

approaches, landing, rollout, and balked 

landings; 

(vi) Weather associated with low 

visibility conditions and its effect on 

EFVS performance; 

(vii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, 

and crew coordination procedures when 

using EFVS; and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90171 

(viii) Interpretation of approach and 

runway lighting systems and their 

display characteristics when using an 

EFVS. 

(b) Flight training. (1) Except as 

provided under paragraph (h) of this 

section, no person may manipulate the 

controls of an aircraft or act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft during an EFVS 

operation under § 91.176(a) or (b) of this 

chapter unless that person— 

(i) Receives and logs flight training for 

the EFVS operation under a training 

program approved by the Administrator; 

and 

(ii) Obtains a logbook or training 

record endorsement from an authorized 

training provider certifying the person is 

proficient in the use of EFVS in the 

category of aircraft in which the training 

was provided for the EFVS operation to 

be conducted. 

(2) Flight training must include the 

following tasks: 

(i) Preflight and inflight preparation of 

EFVS equipment for EFVS operations, 

including EFVS setup and use of 

display, controls, modes and associated 

systems, and adjustments for brightness 

and contrast under day and night 

conditions; 

(ii) Proper piloting techniques 

associated with using EFVS during taxi, 

takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, 

and rollout, including missed 

approaches and balked landings; 

(iii) Proper piloting techniques for the 

use of EFVS during instrument 

approaches, to include operations below 

DA/DH or MDA as applicable to the 

EFVS operations to be conducted, under 

both day and night conditions; 

(iv) Determining enhanced flight 

visibility; 

(v) Identifying required visual 

references appropriate to EFVS 

operations; 

(vi) Transitioning from EFVS sensor 

imagery to natural vision acquisition of 

required visual references and the 

runway environment; 

(vii) Using EFVS sensor imagery, 

required aircraft flight information, and 

flight symbology to touchdown and 

rollout, if the person receiving training 

will conduct EFVS operations under 

§ 91.176(a) of this chapter; and 

(viii) Normal, abnormal, emergency, 

and crew coordination procedures when 

using an EFVS. 

(c) Supplementary EFVS training. A 

person qualified to conduct an EFVS 

operation under § 91.176(a) or (b) of this 

chapter who seeks to conduct an 

additional EFVS operation for which 

that person has not received training 

must— 

(1) Receive and log the ground and 

flight training required by paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, under a training 

program approved by the Administrator, 

appropriate to the additional EFVS 

operation to be conducted; and 

(2) Obtain a logbook or training record 

endorsement from the authorized 

training provider certifying the person is 

proficient in the use of EFVS in the 

category of aircraft in which the training 

was provided for the EFVS operation to 

be conducted. 

(d) Recent flight experience: EFVS. 

Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and 

(h) of this section, no person may 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation or act as pilot 

in command of an aircraft during an 

EFVS operation unless, within 6 

calendar months preceding the month of 

the flight, that person performs and logs 

six instrument approaches as the sole 

manipulator of the controls using an 

EFVS under any weather conditions in 

the category of aircraft for which the 

person seeks the EFVS privilege. The 

instrument approaches may be 

performed in day or night conditions; 

and 

(1) One approach must terminate in a 

full stop landing; and 

(2) For persons authorized to exercise 

the privileges of § 91.176(a), the full 

stop landing must be conducted using 

the EFVS. 

(e) EFVS refresher training. (1) Except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this 

section, a person who has failed to meet 

the recent flight experience 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section for more than six calendar 

months may reestablish EFVS currency 

only by satisfactorily completing an 

approved EFVS refresher course in the 

category of aircraft for which the person 

seeks the EFVS privilege. The EFVS 

refresher course must consist of the 

subjects and tasks listed in paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section 

applicable to the EFVS operations to be 

conducted. 

(2) The EFVS refresher course must be 

conducted by an authorized training 

provider whose instructor meets the 

training requirements of this section 

and, if conducting EFVS operations in 

an aircraft, the recent flight experience 

requirements of this section. 

(f) Military pilots and former military 

pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces. (1) The 

training requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section applicable to 

EFVS operations conducted under 

§ 91.176(a) of this chapter do not apply 

to a military pilot or former military 

pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces if that 

person documents satisfactory 

completion of ground and flight training 

in EFVS operations to touchdown and 

rollout by the U.S. Armed Forces. 

(2) The training requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

applicable to EFVS operations 

conducted under § 91.176(b) of this 

chapter do not apply to a military pilot 

or former military pilot in the U.S. 

Armed Forces if that person documents 

satisfactory completion of ground and 

flight training in EFVS operations to 100 

feet above the touchdown zone 

elevation by the U.S. Armed Forces. 

(3) A military pilot or former military 

pilot in the U.S. Armed Forces may 

satisfy the recent flight experience 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section if he or she documents 

satisfactory completion of an EFVS 

proficiency check in the U.S. Armed 

Forces within 6 calendar months 

preceding the month of the flight, the 

check was conducted by a person 

authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to 

administer the check, and the person 

receiving the check was a member of the 

U.S. Armed Forces at the time the check 

was administered. 

(g) Use of full flight simulators. A 

level C or higher full flight simulator 

(FFS) equipped with an EFVS may be 

used to meet the flight training, recent 

flight experience, and refresher training 

requirements of this section. The FFS 

must be evaluated and qualified for 

EFVS operations by the Administrator, 

and must be: 

(1) Qualified and maintained in 

accordance with part 60 of this chapter, 

or a previously qualified device, as 

permitted in accordance with § 60.17 of 

this chapter; 

(2) Approved by the Administrator for 

the tasks and maneuvers to be 

conducted; and 

(3) Equipped with a daylight visual 

display if being used to meet the flight 

training requirements of this section. 

(h) Exceptions. (1) A person may 

manipulate the controls of an aircraft 

during an EFVS operation without 

meeting the requirements of this section 

in the following circumstances: 

(i) When receiving flight training to 

meet the requirements of this section 

under an approved training program, 

provided the instructor meets the 

requirements in this section to perform 

the EFVS operation in the category of 

aircraft for which the training is being 

conducted. 

(ii) During an EFVS operation 

performed in the course of satisfying the 

recent flight experience requirements of 

paragraph (d) of this section, provided 

another individual is serving as pilot in 

command of the aircraft during the 

EFVS operation and that individual 

meets the requirements in this section to 

perform the EFVS operation in the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90172 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

category of aircraft in which the flight 

is being conducted. 

(iii) During an EFVS operation 

performed in the course of completing 

EFVS refresher training in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section, 

provided the instructor providing the 

refresher training meets the 

requirements in this section to perform 

the EFVS operation in the category of 

aircraft for which the training is being 

conducted. 

(2) The requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section do not apply if 

a person is conducting a flight or series 

of flights in an aircraft issued an 

experimental airworthiness certificate 

under § 21.191 of this chapter for the 

purpose of research and development or 

showing compliance with regulations, 

provided the person has knowledge of 

the subjects specified in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section and has experience with 

the tasks specified in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section applicable to the EFVS 

operations to be conducted. 

(3) The requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section do 

not apply to a pilot who: 

(i) Is employed by a part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121, 125, or 135 

when the pilot is conducting an EFVS 

operation for that certificate holder 

under part 91, 121, 125, or 135, as 

applicable, provided the pilot conducts 

the operation in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications for EFVS operations; 

(ii) Is employed by a person who 

holds a letter of deviation authority 

issued under § 125.3 of this chapter 

when the pilot is conducting an EFVS 

operation for that person under part 

125, provided the pilot is conducting 

the operation in accordance with that 

person’s letter of authorization for EFVS 

operations; or 

(iii) Is employed by a fractional 

ownership program manager to conduct 

operations under part 91 subpart K 

when the pilot is conducting an EFVS 

operation for that program manager 

under part 91, provided the pilot is 

conducting the operation in accordance 

with the program manager’s 

management specifications for EFVS 

operations. 

(4) The requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section do not apply if 

a person is conducting EFVS operations 

under § 91.176(b) of this chapter and 

that person documents that prior to 

March 13, 2018, that person 

satisfactorily completed ground and 

flight training on EFVS operations to 

100 feet above the touchdown zone 

elevation. 

(5) The requirements specified in this 

section do not apply if a person is 

conducting an EFVS operation to 100 

feet above the touchdown zone 

elevation in accordance with the 

requirements of § 91.175(l) and (m) of 

this chapter prior to March 13, 2018. 

§ 61.66 [Amended] 

■ 15. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 61.66 by removing paragraph (h)(5). 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 16. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 17. Amend § 91.175 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (c) introductory 

text and (c)(3)(vi); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as 

paragraph (d)(3) and revise it; 

■ c. Add new paragraph (d)(2); 

■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and 

■ e. Add paragraph (n). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. 

Except as provided in paragraph (l) of 

this section or § 91.176 of this chapter, 

where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, 

no pilot may operate an aircraft, except 

a military aircraft of the United States, 

below the authorized MDA or continue 

an approach below the authorized DA/ 

DH unless— 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) The visual glideslope indicator. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) For operations conducted under 

§ 91.176 of this part, the requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) or (b)(3)(iii), as 

applicable, of that section are not met; 

or 

(3) For all other operations under this 

part and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135, 

the flight visibility is less than the 

visibility prescribed in the standard 

instrument approach procedure being 

used. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Whenever operating an aircraft 

pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l) of this 

section or § 91.176 of this chapter, and 

the requirements of that paragraph or 

section are not met at either of the 

following times: 

* * * * * 

(n) Before March 13, 2018, a person 

conducting an EFVS operation to 100 

feet above the touchdown zone 

elevation must comply with either the 

requirements of paragraphs (l) and (m) 

of this section or with the requirements 

of § 91.176(b) of this part. Beginning on 

March 13, 2018, a person conducting an 

EFVS operation to 100 feet above the 

touchdown zone elevation must comply 

with the requirements of § 91.176(b) of 

this part. The requirements of 

paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section 

will expire on March 13, 2018. 

■ 18. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 91.175 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Remove paragraph (d)(1); 

■ c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2) and 

(3) as (d)(1) and (2), respectively; 

■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(1); and 

■ e. Remove paragraphs (l), (m), and (n). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. 

Except as provided in § 91.176 of this 

chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is 

applicable, no pilot may operate an 

aircraft, except a military aircraft of the 

United States, below the authorized 

MDA or continue an approach below 

the authorized DA/DH unless— 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Whenever operating an aircraft 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section 

or § 91.176 of this part, and the 

requirements of that paragraph or 

section are not met at either of the 

following times: 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Add § 91.176 to read as follows: 

§ 91.176 Straight-in landing operations 

below DA/DH or MDA using an enhanced 

flight vision system (EFVS) under IFR. 

(a) EFVS operations to touchdown 

and rollout. Unless otherwise 

authorized by the Administrator to use 

an MDA as a DA/DH with vertical 

navigation on an instrument approach 

procedure, or unless paragraph (d) of 

this section applies, no person may 

conduct an EFVS operation in an 

aircraft, except a military aircraft of the 

United States, at any airport below the 

authorized DA/DH to touchdown and 

rollout unless the minimums used for 

the particular approach procedure being 

flown include a DA or DH, and the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be 

equipped with an operable EFVS that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90173 

meets the applicable airworthiness 

requirements. The EFVS must: 

(A) Have an electronic means to 

provide a display of the forward 

external scene topography (the 

applicable natural or manmade features 

of a place or region especially in a way 

to show their relative positions and 

elevation) through the use of imaging 

sensors, including but not limited to 

forward-looking infrared, millimeter 

wave radiometry, millimeter wave 

radar, or low-light level image 

intensification. 

(B) Present EFVS sensor imagery, 

aircraft flight information, and flight 

symbology on a head up display, or an 

equivalent display, so that the imagery, 

information and symbology are clearly 

visible to the pilot flying in his or her 

normal position with the line of vision 

looking forward along the flight path. 

Aircraft flight information and flight 

symbology must consist of at least 

airspeed, vertical speed, aircraft 

attitude, heading, altitude, height above 

ground level such as that provided by a 

radio altimeter or other device capable 

of providing equivalent performance, 

command guidance as appropriate for 

the approach to be flown, path deviation 

indications, flight path vector, and flight 

path angle reference cue. Additionally, 

for aircraft other than rotorcraft, the 

EFVS must display flare prompt or flare 

guidance. 

(C) Present the displayed EFVS sensor 

imagery, attitude symbology, flight path 

vector, and flight path angle reference 

cue, and other cues, which are 

referenced to the EFVS sensor imagery 

and external scene topography, so that 

they are aligned with, and scaled to, the 

external view. 

(D) Display the flight path angle 

reference cue with a pitch scale. The 

flight path angle reference cue must be 

selectable by the pilot to the desired 

descent angle for the approach and be 

sufficient to monitor the vertical flight 

path of the aircraft. 

(E) Display the EFVS sensor imagery, 

aircraft flight information, and flight 

symbology such that they do not 

adversely obscure the pilot’s outside 

view or field of view through the 

cockpit window. 

(F) Have display characteristics, 

dynamics, and cues that are suitable for 

manual control of the aircraft to 

touchdown in the touchdown zone of 

the runway of intended landing and 

during rollout. 

(ii) When a minimum flightcrew of 

more than one pilot is required, the 

aircraft must be equipped with a display 

that provides the pilot monitoring with 

EFVS sensor imagery. Any symbology 

displayed may not adversely obscure 

the sensor imagery of the runway 

environment. 

(2) Operations. (i) The pilot 

conducting the EFVS operation may not 

use circling minimums. 

(ii) Each required pilot flightcrew 

member must have adequate knowledge 

of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the 

EFVS, and the procedures to be used. 

(iii) The aircraft must be equipped 

with, and the pilot flying must use, an 

operable EFVS that meets the 

equipment requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(iv) When a minimum flightcrew of 

more than one pilot is required, the 

pilot monitoring must use the display 

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to 

monitor and assess the safe conduct of 

the approach, landing, and rollout. 

(v) The aircraft must continuously be 

in a position from which a descent to a 

landing on the intended runway can be 

made at a normal rate of descent using 

normal maneuvers. 

(vi) The descent rate must allow 

touchdown to occur within the 

touchdown zone of the runway of 

intended landing. 

(vii) Each required pilot flightcrew 

member must meet the following 

requirements— 

(A) A person exercising the privileges 

of a pilot certificate issued under this 

chapter, any person serving as a 

required pilot flightcrew member of a 

U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person 

serving as a required pilot flightcrew 

member for a part 121, 125, or 135 

operator, must be qualified in 

accordance with part 61 and, as 

applicable, the training, testing, and 

qualification provisions of subpart K of 

this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this 

chapter that apply to the operation; or 

(B) Each person acting as a required 

pilot flightcrew member for a foreign air 

carrier subject to part 129, or any person 

serving as a required pilot flightcrew 

member of a foreign registered aircraft, 

must be qualified in accordance with 

the training requirements of the civil 

aviation authority of the State of the 

operator for the EFVS operation to be 

conducted. 

(viii) A person conducting operations 

under this part must conduct the 

operation in accordance with a letter of 

authorization for the use of EFVS unless 

the operation is conducted in an aircraft 

that has been issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter 

for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations, or the operation is 

being conducted by a person otherwise 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations 

under paragraphs (a)(2)(ix) through (xii) 

of this section. A person applying to the 

FAA for a letter of authorization must 

submit an application in a form and 

manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

(ix) A person conducting operations 

under subpart K of this part must 

conduct the operation in accordance 

with management specifications 

authorizing the use of EFVS. 

(x) A person conducting operations 

under part 121, 129, or 135 of this 

chapter must conduct the operation in 

accordance with operations 

specifications authorizing the use of 

EFVS. 

(xi) A person conducting operations 

under part 125 of this chapter must 

conduct the operation in accordance 

with operations specifications 

authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a 

holder of a part 125 letter of deviation 

authority, a letter of authorization for 

the use of EFVS. 

(xii) A person conducting an EFVS 

operation during an authorized Category 

II or Category III operation must conduct 

the operation in accordance with 

operations specifications, management 

specifications, or a letter of 

authorization authorizing EFVS 

operations during authorized Category II 

or Category III operations. 

(3) Visibility and visual reference 

requirements. No pilot operating under 

this section or §§ 121.651, 125.381, or 

135.225 of this chapter may continue an 

approach below the authorized DA/DH 

and land unless: 

(i) The pilot determines that the 

enhanced flight visibility observed by 

use of an EFVS is not less than the 

visibility prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure being used. 

(ii) From the authorized DA/DH to 

100 feet above the touchdown zone 

elevation of the runway of intended 

landing, any approach light system or 

both the runway threshold and the 

touchdown zone are distinctly visible 

and identifiable to the pilot using an 

EFVS. 

(A) The pilot must identify the 

runway threshold using at least one of 

the following visual references— 

(1) The beginning of the runway 

landing surface; 

(2) The threshold lights; or 

(3) The runway end identifier lights. 

(B) The pilot must identify the 

touchdown zone using at least one of 

the following visual references— 

(1) The runway touchdown zone 

landing surface; 

(2) The touchdown zone lights; 

(3) The touchdown zone markings; or 

(4) The runway lights. 

(iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone elevation of the runway of 

intended landing and below that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

altitude, the enhanced flight visibility 

using EFVS must be sufficient for one of 

the following visual references to be 

distinctly visible and identifiable to the 

pilot— 

(A) The runway threshold; 

(B) The lights or markings of the 

threshold; 

(C) The runway touchdown zone 

landing surface; or 

(D) The lights or markings of the 

touchdown zone. 

(4) Additional requirements. The 

Administrator may prescribe additional 

equipment, operational, and visibility 

and visual reference requirements to 

account for specific equipment 

characteristics, operational procedures, 

or approach characteristics. These 

requirements will be specified in an 

operator’s operations specifications, 

management specifications, or letter of 

authorization authorizing the use of 

EFVS. 

(b) EFVS operations to 100 feet above 

the touchdown zone elevation. Except as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, no person may conduct an 

EFVS operation in an aircraft, except a 

military aircraft of the United States, at 

any airport below the authorized DA/ 

DH or MDA to 100 feet above the 

touchdown zone elevation unless the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) Equipment. (i) The aircraft must be 

equipped with an operable EFVS that 

meets the applicable airworthiness 

requirements. 

(ii) The EFVS must meet the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) 

through (F) of this section, but need not 

present flare prompt, flare guidance, or 

height above ground level. 

(2) Operations. (i) The pilot 

conducting the EFVS operation may not 

use circling minimums. 

(ii) Each required pilot flightcrew 

member must have adequate knowledge 

of, and familiarity with, the aircraft, the 

EFVS, and the procedures to be used. 

(iii) The aircraft must be equipped 

with, and the pilot flying must use, an 

operable EFVS that meets the 

equipment requirements of paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. 

(iv) The aircraft must continuously be 

in a position from which a descent to a 

landing on the intended runway can be 

made at a normal rate of descent using 

normal maneuvers. 

(v) For operations conducted under 

part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, the 

descent rate must allow touchdown to 

occur within the touchdown zone of the 

runway of intended landing. 

(vi) Each required pilot flightcrew 

member must meet the following 

requirements— 

(A) A person exercising the privileges 

of a pilot certificate issued under this 

chapter, any person serving as a 

required pilot flightcrew member of a 

U.S.-registered aircraft, or any person 

serving as a required pilot flightcrew 

member for a part 121, 125, or 135 

operator, must be qualified in 

accordance with part 61 and, as 

applicable, the training, testing, and 

qualification provisions of subpart K of 

this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this 

chapter that apply to the operation; or 

(B) Each person acting as a required 

pilot flightcrew member for a foreign air 

carrier subject to part 129, or any person 

serving as a required pilot flightcrew 

member of a foreign registered aircraft, 

must be qualified in accordance with 

the training requirements of the civil 

aviation authority of the State of the 

operator for the EFVS operation to be 

conducted. 

(vii) A person conducting operations 

under subpart K of this part must 

conduct the operation in accordance 

with management specifications 

authorizing the use of EFVS. 

(viii) A person conducting operations 

under part 121, 129, or 135 of this 

chapter must conduct the operation in 

accordance with operations 

specifications authorizing the use of 

EFVS. 

(ix) A person conducting operations 

under part 125 of this chapter must 

conduct the operation in accordance 

with operations specifications 

authorizing the use of EFVS or, for a 

holder of a part 125 letter of deviation 

authority, a letter of authorization for 

the use of EFVS. 

(x) A person conducting an EFVS 

operation during an authorized Category 

II or Category III operation must conduct 

the operation in accordance with 

operations specifications, management 

specifications, or a letter of 

authorization authorizing EFVS 

operations during authorized Category II 

or Category III operations. 

(3) Visibility and Visual Reference 

Requirements. No pilot operating under 

this section or § 121.651, § 125.381, or 

§ 135.225 of this chapter may continue 

an approach below the authorized MDA 

or continue an approach below the 

authorized DA/DH and land unless: 

(i) The pilot determines that the 

enhanced flight visibility observed by 

use of an EFVS is not less than the 

visibility prescribed in the instrument 

approach procedure being used. 

(ii) From the authorized MDA or DA/ 

DH to 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone elevation of the runway of 

intended landing, any approach light 

system or both the runway threshold 

and the touchdown zone are distinctly 

visible and identifiable to the pilot 

using an EFVS. 

(A) The pilot must identify the 

runway threshold using at least one of 

the following visual references– 

(1) The beginning of the runway 

landing surface; 

(2) The threshold lights; or 

(3) The runway end identifier lights. 

(B) The pilot must identify the 

touchdown zone using at least one of 

the following visual references— 

(1) The runway touchdown zone 

landing surface; 

(2) The touchdown zone lights; 

(3) The touchdown zone markings; or 

(4) The runway lights. 

(iii) At 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone elevation of the runway of 

intended landing and below that 

altitude, the flight visibility must be 

sufficient for— 

(A) The runway threshold; 

(B) The lights or markings of the 

threshold; 

(C) The runway touchdown zone 

landing surface; or 

(D) The lights or markings of the 

touchdown zone. 

(4) Compliance Date. Beginning on 

March 13, 2018, a person conducting an 

EFVS operation to 100 feet above the 

touchdown zone elevation must comply 

with the requirements of paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(c) Public aircraft certification and 

training requirements. A public aircraft 

operator, other than the U.S. military, 

may conduct an EFVS operation under 

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section only 

if: 

(1) The aircraft meets all of the civil 

certification and airworthiness 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or 

(b)(1) of this section, as applicable to the 

EFVS operation to be conducted; and 

(2) The pilot flightcrew member, or 

any other person who manipulates the 

controls of an aircraft during an EFVS 

operation, meets the training, recent 

flight experience and refresher training 

requirements of § 61.66 of this chapter 

applicable to EFVS operations. 

(d) Exception for Experimental 

Aircraft. The requirement to use an 

EFVS that meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(i), 

and (b)(2)(iii) of this section does not 

apply to operations conducted in an 

aircraft issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter 

for the purpose of research and 

development or showing compliance 

with regulations, provided the 

Administrator has determined that the 

operations can be conducted safely in 

accordance with operating limitations 

issued for that purpose. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90175 

■ 20. Amend § 91.189 by revising 

paragraph (d) introductory text and 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.189 Category II and III operations: 

General operating rules. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as provided in § 91.176 of 

this part or unless otherwise authorized 

by the Administrator, no pilot operating 

an aircraft in a Category II or Category 

III approach that provides and requires 

the use of a DA/DH may continue the 

approach below the authorized decision 

height unless the following conditions 

are met: 

* * * * * 

(e) Except as provided in § 91.176 of 

this part or unless otherwise authorized 

by the Administrator, each pilot 

operating an aircraft shall immediately 

execute an appropriate missed approach 

whenever, prior to touchdown, the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section are not met. 

* * * * * 

■ 21. Amend § 91.905 by adding an 

entry for § 91.176 in numerical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.905 List of rules subject to waivers. 

Sec. 

* * * * * 

91.176 Operations below DA/DH or MDA 

using an enhanced flight vision system 

(EFVS) under IFR. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Amend § 91.1039 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and 

landing minimums. 

* * * * * 

(e) Except as provided in §§ 91.175(l) 

or 91.176 of this chapter, each pilot 

making an IFR takeoff or approach and 

landing at an airport must comply with 

applicable instrument approach 

procedures and takeoff and landing 

weather minimums prescribed by the 

authority having jurisdiction over the 

airport. In addition, no pilot may take 

off at that airport when the visibility is 

less than 600 feet, unless otherwise 

authorized in the program manager’s 

management specifications for EFVS 

operations. 

■ 23. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 91.1039 by revising paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and 

landing minimums. 

* * * * * 

(e) Except as provided in § 91.176 of 

this chapter, each pilot making an IFR 

takeoff or approach and landing at an 

airport must comply with applicable 

instrument approach procedures and 

takeoff and landing weather minimums 

prescribed by the authority having 

jurisdiction over the airport. In addition, 

no pilot may take off at that airport 

when the visibility is less than 600 feet, 

unless otherwise authorized in the 

program manager’s management 

specifications for EFVS operations. 

■ 24. Amend § 91.1065 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1065 Initial and recurrent pilot testing 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) If the program manager is 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations, 

the competency check in paragraph (b) 

of this section must include tasks 

appropriate to the EFVS operations the 

certificate holder is authorized to 

conduct. 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 25. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

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

40119, 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 

44709–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 

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). 

■ 26. Amend § 121.651 by revising 

paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c) 

introductory text, and (d) introductory 

text, redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) 

as paragraphs (f) and (g), and adding 

new paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather 

minimums: IFR: All certificate holders. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(d) and (e) of this section, no pilot may 

continue an approach past the final 

approach fix, or where a final approach 

fix is not used, begin the final approach 

segment of an instrument approach 

procedure— 

(c) A pilot who has begun the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section, and after 

that receives a later weather report 

indicating below-minimum conditions, 

may continue the approach to DA/DH or 

MDA. Upon reaching DA/DH or at 

MDA, and at any time before the missed 

approach point, the pilot may continue 

the approach below DA/DH or MDA if 

either the requirements of § 91.175(l) or 

§ 91.176 of this chapter, or the following 

requirements are met: 

* * * * * 

(d) A pilot may begin the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure other than a 

Category II or Category III procedure at 

an airport when the visibility is less 

than the visibility minimums prescribed 

for that procedure if the airport is served 

by an operative ILS and an operative 

PAR, and both are used by the pilot. 

However, no pilot may continue an 

approach below the authorized DA/DH 

unless the requirements of § 91.175(l) or 

§ 91.176 of this chapter, or the following 

requirements are met: 

* * * * * 

(e) A pilot may begin the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure, or continue that 

approach procedure, at an airport when 

the visibility is reported to be less than 

the visibility minimums prescribed for 

that procedure if the pilot uses an 

operable EFVS in accordance with 

§ 91.176 of this chapter and the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications for EFVS operations. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 121.651 by revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text and (d) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather 

minimums: IFR: All certificate holders. 

* * * * * 

(c) A pilot who has begun the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section, and after 

that receives a later weather report 

indicating below-minimum conditions, 

may continue the approach to DA/DH or 

MDA. Upon reaching DA/DH or at 

MDA, and at any time before the missed 

approach point, the pilot may continue 

the approach below DA/DH or MDA if 

either the requirements of § 91.176 of 

this chapter, or the following 

requirements are met: 

* * * * * 

(d) A pilot may begin the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure other than a 

Category II or Category III procedure at 

an airport when the visibility is less 

than the visibility minimums prescribed 

for that procedure if the airport is served 

by an operative ILS and an operative 

PAR, and both are used by the pilot. 

However, no pilot may continue an 

approach below the authorized DA/DH 

unless the requirements of § 91.176 of 

this chapter, or the following 

requirements are met: 

* * * * * 

■ 28. In appendix F to part 121, amend 

the Table by adding new entries III(c)(5), 

V(g), and V(h) to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

90176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix F to Part 121—Proficiency 

Check Requirements 

* * * * * 

Maneuvers/procedures 

Required Permitted 

Simulated 

instrument 

conditions 

Inflight Visual 

simulator 

Nonvisual 

simulator 

Training 

device 

Waiver 

provisions of 

§ 121.441(d) 

*******

III. Instrument procedures: 

*******

(c) ILS and other instrument approaches. There must 

be the following: 

*******

(5) For each type of EFVS operation the certificate 

holder is authorized to conduct, at least one instrument approach must be made using an 

EFVS. ................................................................... B * B .................... .................... .................... ......................

*******

V. Landings and Approaches to Landings— 

*******

(g) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct 

EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout, at least 

one instrument approach to a landing must be made 

using an EFVS, including the use of enhanced flight 

vision from 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation to touchdown and rollout .................................. B * B 

(h) If the certificate holder is authorized to conduct 

EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone elevation, at least one instrument approach to 

a landing must be made using an EFVS, including 

the transition from enhanced flight vision to natural 

vision at 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation ........................................................................... B * B 

*******

■ 29. In appendix H to part 121, amend 

‘‘Level B Training and Checking 

Permitted’’ by revising paragraph 3. to 

read as follows: 

Appendix H to Part 121—Advanced 

Simulation 

* * * * * 

Level B 

Training and Checking Permitted 

* * * * * 

3. Except for EFVS operations, landings in 

a proficiency check without the landing on 

the line requirements (§ 121.441). 

* * * * * 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 30. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 

44716–44717, 44722. 

■ 31. Amend § 125.287 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 125.287 Initial and recurrent pilot testing 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) If the certificate holder is 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations, 

the competency check in paragraph (b) 

of this section must include tasks 

appropriate to the EFVS operations the 

certificate holder is authorized to 

conduct. 

■ 32. Revise § 125.325 to read as 

follows: 

§ 125.325 Instrument approach procedures 

and IFR landing minimums. 

Except as specified in §§ 91.175(l) or 

91.176 of this chapter, no person may 

make an instrument approach at an 

airport except in accordance with IFR 

weather minimums and unless the type 

of instrument approach procedure to be 

used is listed in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

■ 33. Effective March 13, 2018, revise 

§ 125.325 to read as follows: 

§ 125.325 Instrument approach procedures 

and IFR landing minimums. 

Except as specified in § 91.176 of this 

chapter, no person may make an 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 90177 

instrument approach at an airport 

except in accordance with IFR weather 

minimums and unless the type of 

instrument approach procedure to be 

used is listed in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

■ 34. Amend § 125.381 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c) 

introductory text, and adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather 

minimums: IFR. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section, land an 

airplane under IFR. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section, no pilot may 

execute an instrument approach 

procedure if the latest reported visibility 

is less than the landing minimums 

specified in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

(c) A pilot who initiates an instrument 

approach procedure based on a weather 

report that indicates that the specified 

visibility minimums exist and 

subsequently receives another weather 

report that indicates that conditions are 

below the minimum requirements, may 

continue the approach only if the 

requirements of § 91.175(l) or § 91.176 

of this chapter, or both of the following 

conditions are met— 

* * * * * 

(d) A pilot may execute an instrument 

approach procedure, or continue the 

approach, at an airport when the 

visibility is reported to be less than the 

visibility minimums prescribed for that 

procedure if the pilot uses an operable 

EFVS in accordance with § 91.176 of 

this chapter and the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications for EFVS 

operations, or for a holder of a part 125 

letter of deviation authority, a letter of 

authorization for the use of EFVS. 

■ 35. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 125.381 by revising paragraph (c) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 125.381 Takeoff and landing weather 

minimums: IFR. 

* * * * * 

(c) A pilot who initiates an instrument 

approach procedure based on a weather 

report that indicates that the specified 

visibility minimums exist and 

subsequently receives another weather 

report that indicates that conditions are 

below the minimum requirements, may 

continue the approach only if either the 

requirements of § 91.176 of this chapter, 

or the following conditions are met— 

* * * * * 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 36. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 

40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 

44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– 

45105; Public Law 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 

U.S.C. 44730). 

■ 37. Amend § 135.225 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory 

text and (b) introductory text; 

■ b. Remove paragraph (d); 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d) and revise it; 

■ d. Add new paragraph (c); and 

■ e. Add paragraph (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and 

landing minimums. 

(a) Except to the extent permitted by 

paragraphs (b) and (j) of this section, no 

pilot may begin an instrument approach 

procedure to an airport unless— 

(b) A pilot conducting an eligible ondemand operation may begin and 

conduct an instrument approach 

procedure to an airport that does not 

have a weather reporting facility 

operated by the U.S. National Weather 

Service, a source approved by the U.S. 

National Weather Service, or a source 

approved by the Administrator if— 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (j) 

of this section, no pilot may begin the 

final approach segment of an instrument 

approach procedure to an airport unless 

the latest weather reported by the 

facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section indicates that weather 

conditions are at or above the 

authorized IFR landing minimums for 

that procedure. 

(d) A pilot who has begun the final 

approach segment of an instrument 

approach to an airport under paragraph 

(c) of this section, and receives a later 

weather report indicating that 

conditions have worsened to below the 

minimum requirements, may continue 

the approach only if the requirements of 

§ 91.175(l) of this chapter, paragraph (j) 

of this section, or both of the following 

conditions are met— 

(1) The later weather report is 

received when the aircraft is in one of 

the following approach phases: 

(i) The aircraft is on an ILS final 

approach and has passed the final 

approach fix; 

(ii) The aircraft is on an ASR or PAR 

final approach and has been turned over 

to the final approach controller; or 

(iii) The aircraft is on a non-precision 

final approach and the aircraft— 

(A) Has passed the appropriate facility 

or final approach fix; or 

(B) Where a final approach fix is not 

specified, has completed the procedure 

turn and is established inbound toward 

the airport on the final approach course 

within the distance prescribed in the 

procedure; and 

(2) The pilot in command finds, on 

reaching the authorized MDA or DA/

DH, that the actual weather conditions 

are at or above the minimums 

prescribed for the procedure being used. 

* * * * * 

(j) A pilot may begin an instrument 

approach procedure, or continue an 

approach, at an airport when the 

visibility is reported to be less than the 

visibility minimums prescribed for that 

procedure if the pilot uses an operable 

EFVS in accordance with § 91.176 of 

this chapter and the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications for EFVS 

operations. 

■ 38. Effective March 13, 2018, amend 

§ 135.225 by revising paragraph (d) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and 

landing minimums. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (j) 

of this section, a pilot who has begun 

the final approach segment of an 

instrument approach to an airport under 

paragraph (c) of this section, and 

receives a later weather report 

indicating that conditions have 

worsened to below the minimum 

requirements, may continue the 

approach only if the following 

conditions are met— 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Amend § 135.293 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 135.293 Initial and recurrent pilot testing 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) If the certificate holder is 

authorized to conduct EFVS operations, 

the competency check in paragraph (b) 

of this section must include tasks 

appropriate to the EFVS operations the 

certificate holder is authorized to 

conduct. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on November 7, 2016. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–28714 Filed 12–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3