Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use, 63392-63640 [06-8677]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 209 (Monday, October 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63392-63640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8677]



[[Page 63391]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 60, and 121



Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification 
and Use; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 63392]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 60, and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Amendment Nos. 1-54, 11-52, 60-1, 121-327]
RIN 2120-AH07


Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing 
Qualification and Use

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the regulations to establish a new part to 
set forth qualification requirements for flight simulation training 
devices (FSTD). The new part consolidates and updates FSTD requirements 
that currently exist in different parts of the FAA's regulations and in 
advisory circulars. In addition, the FAA is requiring that sponsors of 
FSTDs have a Quality Management System. These changes are necessary to 
promote standardization and accountability for FSTD qualification, 
maintenance, and evaluation. The intended effect of the new part is to 
ensure that users of FSTDs receive training in devices that closely 
match the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft 
being simulated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These amendments become effective October 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Cook, Air Transportation Division 
(AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 
100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30354; telephone: 
404-832-4700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our 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.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 
more about SBREFA on the Internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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 
Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, 49 U.S.C. 44701. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with regulating air commerce in a way that best 
promotes safety.

Background

    For many years the flightcrew training regulations in 14 CFR part 
121 subparts N and O allowed simulator training as an enhancement to 
training and testing in the aircraft, but not as a complete replacement 
for training in the aircraft. Due to improvements in flight simulator 
performance, appendix H was added to part 121 in 1980. Appendix H 
permitted and expanded use of simulators by air carriers that took 
advantage of the new simulator performance through an ``Advanced 
Simulation Training Program.'' Appendix H permits simulators to be used 
for varying amounts (up to 100%) of the training, testing, and checking 
required by the FAA. The amount of training permitted depends on the 
simulator's qualification level.
    As the state-of-the-art in simulator technology has advanced, more 
effective use has been made of the aircraft simulator in training, 
checking, and certification of flight crewmembers. Using flight 
simulators rather than aircraft in training allows for more in-depth 
training, including the practice of critical emergency procedures, in a 
safer environment. Not only do simulators provide improvements in 
safety and in safer training operations, they also provide such 
benefits as reducing noise, air pollution and air traffic congestion, 
and conserving petroleum resources.
    Since 1980 appendix H of 14 CFR part 121 has provided an Advanced 
Simulation plan outlining the steps toward optimum use of flight 
simulators. Most major air carriers have taken advantage of appendix H 
and conduct most or all of their training and checking in simulators.
    The FAA originally placed simulator technical requirements in 
appendix H because part 121 air carriers were the primary users of 
aircraft simulators. As the larger aviation community became interested 
in using simulators, the FAA in 1980 provided guidance in an advisory 
circular AC 121-14C, Aircraft Simulator and Visual System Evaluation 
and Approval. The AC more fully described what the technical 
capabilities of simulators should be, how those capabilities might be 
verified, and how all these capabilities might be incorporated into 
training programs.
    Over the next several years following publication of AC 121-14C, 
the FAA, in consultation with the aviation industry, refined and 
republished its guidance material several times. Because the 
regulations regarding advanced simulators remained in part 121, 
appendix H, certificate holders who operated under parts other than 121 
(such as parts 125 and 135) had to obtain exemptions in order to use 
simulators as provided in part 121, appendix H. The number of these 
operators has continued to grow.
    The ability to manage the increasing number of exemptions, each one 
with slightly different provisions, conditions and limitations, became 
increasingly difficult. The development of 14 CFR part 142, 
Certification of Training Centers, was seen to be a logical and 
necessary way to deal with those operators who wished to conduct 
training for flight crewmembers but who did not operate under any of 
the part 121, 125 or 135 rules. However, the regulatory requirements 
for the technical criteria for a majority of the simulators coming into 
the U.S. aviation inventory has remained in the part 121 operating 
rule.

[[Page 63393]]

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for part 
60 and related amendments on September 25, 2002, (67 FR 60284) and 
published a correction to the NPRM on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65524). 
From December 2 until December 13, 2002, the FAA hosted an on-line 
public forum, which provided an opportunity for the public to answer 
specific questions posed by the FAA and allowed the FAA to respond with 
clarifying information. After an extension requested by commenters, the 
comment period closed on February 24, 2003.
    In the NPRM the FAA proposed to remove the technical requirements 
for flight simulation devices (FSD) (flight simulators and flight 
training devices) from part 121 and place them in a new part 60, titled 
``Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and 
Use.'' The NPRM proposed to establish FSTD requirements for anyone 
conducting flight crewmember training, evaluation, and flight 
experience under any of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)

    In order to resolve comments and provide a forum for the FAA and 
the aviation community to discuss issues regarding Flight Simulation 
Training Devices (FSTDs), the FAA established the Flight Simulation 
Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on July 2, 2003. The ARC 
included participants from: Air Line Pilots Association, Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association, American Airlines, Alteon, Atlas Air, 
Boeing, CAE Electronics, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Federal 
Express, FlightSafety International, Northwest Airlines, Pan Am Flight 
Academy, Thales Training and Simulation, United Airlines, U.S. Airways, 
and FAA.
    The general goal of the ARC was to provide advice, guidance, and 
recommendations on FSTD issues including, but not limited to, safety of 
flight; the suitability and the application of the simulation to flight 
crewmember training, testing, or checking activities; and 
implementation of technical changes or scientific advancements in 
simulation. The ARC provided a forum for the FAA and affected members 
of the aviation community to discuss issues. The ARC also allowed 
members of the aviation community to reach consensus on certain 
recommendations that would be submitted to the FAA and to develop 
resolutions to facilitate the evolution of FSTDs. The ARC's initial 
task was to review the FAA's September 25, 2002, proposed rule. On 
November 24, 2003, the ARC submitted to the FAA its recommendations on 
how the proposed rule language should be clarified and reorganized. 
After the FAA received recommendations from the ARC the comment period 
was reopened on February 10, 2004, to permit interested persons to 
review these recommendations and submit additional comments. The 
recommendations from the ARC are available online at https://dms.dot.gov 
by searching for entry 84 in docket number FAA-2002-12461. The comment 
period closed on March 11, 2004. The overwhelming majority of the 
clarifications and revisions contained in the final rule are consistent 
with the ARC recommendations.

Summary of the Final Rule

    New part 60 contains the requirements for the evaluation, 
qualification, and maintenance of FSTDs. These requirements are based 
on the current guidance regarding the capability and performance of 
simulators in appendix H of part 121 and Sec.  121.407. As part of this 
rulemaking project, the FAA has amended appendix H of part 121 and 
removed the Simulator Requirements and the Visual Requirements for 
Level B, C and D devices. These requirements are now outlined in the 
appropriate Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices. In a 
separate rulemaking project that will follow this final rule, the FAA 
will propose to move Training and Checking Requirements of appendix H 
to a new subpart of part 121, and to delete appendix H.
    Part 60 also contains items (such as frequency, content, and method 
of evaluation) previously found in the advisory material in AC 120-40B, 
Airplane Flight Simulator Qualification, in AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight 
Training Device Qualification, and in AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator 
Qualification. Standards from this advisory material and specific items 
that are subject to change through technological advancements are being 
placed into one of the first four appendices to part 60:
     Appendix A, ``Qualification Performance Standards for 
Airplane Full Flight Simulators.''
     Appendix B, ``Qualification Performance Standards for 
Airplane Flight Training Devices.''
     Appendix C, ``Qualification Performance Standards for 
Helicopter Full Flight Simulators.''
     Appendix D, ``Qualification Performance Standards for 
Helicopter Flight Training Devices.''
    In addition, the FAA has reorganized and clarified some material 
from the original NPRM into two appendices, Appendix E, ``Qualification 
Performance Standards for Quality Management Systems for Flight 
Simulation Training Devices,'' and Appendix F, ``Definitions and 
Abbreviations.'' Appendix E will become the single appendix for 
reference to Quality Management System (QMS) programs for FSTDs under 
this part. Appendix F will become the single appendix for definitions 
and abbreviations for terms used throughout part 60 and the QPS 
appendices.
    Some of the terms and abbreviations listed in the new appendix F 
and added to part 1 are clarifications of terms that appeared in the 
September 25, 2002, NPRM. For example, FSD has been replaced with the 
more internationally compatible term--FSTD. The term FSTD more 
accurately addresses the full range of uses for these devices as 
addressed in part 60 and also harmonizes with the Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA) of Europe. In addition, to more appropriately 
describe the devices, the term Flight Simulator has been changed to 
Full Flight Simulator (FFS). Another clarification the FAA has made 
with respect to terms and definitions is that the Quality Assurance 
Program (QAP) is now called a QMS.
    The QPS requirements in appendices A through E are regulatory. 
Future changes and additions to these standards are subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, unless ``good cause'' (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify 
proceeding without notice and comment. In addition, the FAA has issued 
FAA Order 1110.136, ``Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee.''

What Action Is the Agency Taking?

    The FAA is adding part 60 to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations to establish qualification requirements for flight 
simulation training devices (FSTD). These requirements are based on the 
current requirements found in appendix H of part 121 and Sec.  121.407 
for the capability and performance of aircraft simulators. The new rule 
also incorporates certain existing practices that were previously 
described in the following Advisory Circulars: AC 120-40B, Airplane 
Flight Simulator Qualification, AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight Training 
Device Qualification, and AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator 
Qualification.

[[Page 63394]]

Why Is the Rule Necessary?

    The rule is necessary to promote standardization and accountability 
for FSTD maintenance, qualification and evaluation for use in an FAA 
approved flight training program. FSTDs are often used in lieu of 
aircraft to train and check individuals for purposes of issuing airmen 
certificates and ratings. FSTDs are also used to meet FAA air carrier 
training requirements for flight crewmembers. In fact, depending on the 
status of the airman and the sophistication of the device, an FSTD may 
be used for 100% of the training, testing, and checking required by the 
FAA. Training in an FSTD is most effective when the FSTD closely 
matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft 
being simulated. This rule sets forth the regulatory process for 
establishing the qualification level of the FSTD and for the continuous 
review and inspection of FSTD performance to identify potential 
problems with FSTD maintenance and operation. The new rule will improve 
flight crewmember training, reduce operational errors and increase 
safety. It will also provide the standards that must be reached in 
order for a device to be qualified at a certain level (i.e., Level A, 
B, C, or D Simulators and Level 4, 5, or 6 Training Devices).
    Generally speaking, the amount of training and testing that can be 
conducted in an FSTD for the purpose of meeting FAA airmen 
certification or training requirements is directly proportional to the 
qualification level of the device. Thus, a device with a higher 
qualification level (e.g., Level D) will be eligible for more 
certification and training credits than a device with a lower 
qualification level (e.g., Level A).

Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)

    One of the unique features of the part 60 rule is the incorporation 
of QPS. The QPS is an appendix to the regulation and outlines 
requirements and other information regarding the qualification, 
performance, evaluation and maintenance of FSTDs. The QPS contains 
several charts. Some of the charts prescribe regulatory requirements, 
while others outline general information and examples to assist the 
user in meeting the regulatory requirements.
    The charts containing regulatory material are labeled ``QPS 
Requirements.'' Compliance with the criteria in these charts is 
mandatory in order to receive and maintain approval from the FAA for 
the qualification level and use of an FSTD. Changes to a QPS 
Requirement are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures 
under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless ``good cause'' (see 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify proceeding without notice and 
comment. The charts containing general information and examples are 
labeled ``Information.'' Compliance with the material contained in 
these charts is not mandatory, and changes to an Information section 
are generally not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. 
The Information charts are included simply to provide additional 
guidance to the user.
    Incorporating both the regulatory and advisory material into the 
QPS consolidates all of the relevant information and makes it available 
in one location. This promotes ease of use and greater uniformity among 
those involved in every aspect of FSTD performance, including 
manufacturers, airmen, training providers and regulators. Moreover, it 
gives greater insight to the regulated community regarding the FAA's 
intent behind the regulation, and the required and approved methods of 
compliance.

Comments

    The FAA received 54 comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters 
included industry associations, airlines, training centers and schools, 
aircraft manufacturers, simulator and flight training device 
manufacturers, pilot associations, governmental organizations, and 
individuals. The major concerns of the commenters were harmonization of 
FAA standards with those of International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) and the JAA, the cost of complying with the new requirements, 
grandfathering existing simulators and other flight training devices, 
the requirement for a Quality Assurance Program (QAP), and the proposed 
requirements to be approved by the FAA as an FSTD ``sponsor.''
    The FAA reviewed all comments. They are more fully explained in the 
Discussion section to follow. With respect to the major concerns raised 
by commenters, the FAA took the following actions:
     Revised certain sections of the QPS Requirements to 
incorporate ICAO/JAA standards that were within the scope of the 
original NPRM. Changes that are beyond the scope will be incorporated 
in future revisions to the QPS Requirements.
     Revised certain requirements where appropriate in order to 
reduce costs. The FAA notes, however, that part 60 is largely a 
codification of existing practices, and therefore, the agency does not 
anticipate that sponsors will incur many new or additional costs. The 
FAA's cost projection is outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation.
     Excluded Levels 2 and -3 Flight Training Devices from this 
rulemaking effort. The FAA will review its existing advisory material 
and determine the best method to continue to evaluate and qualify these 
devices.
     Replaced the QAP proposal with a Quality Management System 
(QMS). The QMS is significantly less costly than the proposed QAP.
     Eliminated the 600-hour annual use requirement for 
sponsorship eligibility. Persons are now permitted to sponsor an FSTD 
as long as the device is used at least once per year in an FAA approved 
training program, or at least once per year a pilot, appropriately 
qualified on the aircraft being simulated, flies the FSTD and confirms 
that the performance and handling qualities are like the aircraft.
    Many other detailed comments of an editorial nature were also 
provided. These are not included in the summary, but have been 
carefully reviewed by the FAA in preparing the Final Rule. In addition, 
the specific comments on the QPS appendices are not summarized in the 
Final Rule summary, but have been carefully reviewed and incorporated, 
where appropriate, into the Final Rule. The FAA made certain changes to 
the QPS appendices from the proposed language to include technical 
corrections and clarifications that did not adversely affect safety and 
were within the scope of the NPRM. There were other technical changes 
that the FAA did not incorporate into this final rule because they were 
beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA will issue another NPRM to 
incorporate the changes that were beyond the scope of the original 
NPRM, and will incorporate these changes before the rule becomes 
effective. All of the comments are available for review at https://
dms.dot.gov. The Docket Number is 12461.

Abbreviations Used in this Preamble

AC Advisory Circular
ALPA Airline Pilots Association
AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATA Air Transport Association
ATOS Air Transportation Oversight System
CBT Computer Based Training
DPE Designated Pilot Examiner
EASA European Aviation Safety Authority (formerly Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA)
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FOQA Flight Operations Quality Assurance
FSB Flight Safety Boeing
FSD Flight Simulation Device

[[Page 63395]]

FSDO Flight Standards District Office
FSI FlightSafety International
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
FTD Flight Training Device
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
MQTG Master Qualification Test Guide
MR Management Representative
NAFI National Association of Flight Instructors
NATA National Air Transport Association
NBAA National Business Aviation Association
NDB Non-Directional Beacon
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSP National Simulator Program
NSPM National Simulator Program Manager
POI Principal Operations Inspector
QPS Qualification Performance Standards
QAP Quality Assurance Program
QMS Quality Management System
QS Quality System
QTG Qualification Test Guide
RAA Regional Airline Association
SITC Simulation and Instrument Training Center, Inc.
SOQ Statement of Qualification
TCPM Training Center Program Managers
Thales Thales Training & Simulation
TPAA Training Program Approval Authority
UA United Airlines
UAA University Aviation Association
UPS United Parcel Service

General Issues

General Comments

    Eclipse, NLX Corporation, JAA, and an individual, applaud and 
appreciate the FAA's attempt to amend the regulations for FSTDs. JAA 
writes that the ``proposal takes care of the legal concern that 
regulations in this area have to have a mandatory basis * * * and it 
concentrates all related material in one document.'' This commenter 
states that this proposal did not address the latest modifications 
applied to the ICAO Manual and questions if using an FSTD instead of an 
aircraft would be made mandatory. An individual writes that 
simplification and consolidation of these regulations are appropriate 
and more detailed regulations and device inspection will force flight 
training schools to improve and that ``somewhat of a loophole'' in 
flight training in flight simulators and flight training devices would 
be closed. NLX indicates that these new regulations are a step forward 
in the overall process of FSTD qualifications. An individual believes 
that statistics proving that the use of simulator training has reduced 
aviation accidents or incidents are needed.
    FAA Response: This final rule does not mandate the use of FSTDs 
instead of aircraft for training. This rule simply establishes FSTD 
qualification requirements. The FAA is developing an NPRM that proposes 
to revise the QPS appendices to achieve the desired level of 
harmonization.
Disposition of Level 7 Flight Training Devices
    Regional Airline Association states that the preamble should 
discuss the disposition of Level 7 FTDs.
    FAA Response: The original premise for the Level 7 FTD was that 
there was to be an aircraft entering service that would not have an 
``on-set motion cue'' with the failure of an engine, and that the 
pilots training in an FSTD for that airplane type could be trained and 
checked on such an engine failure without requiring a force (motion) 
cueing system. The FAA determined that a Level C simulator aerodynamic 
data package would be required for the level 7 FTD to accurately 
simulate such an aircraft. However, the airplane never entered service 
and the requirements for the Level 7 FTD quickly became superfluous. 
Level 6 and Level 7 FTDs had the same authorizations (except for one 
area involving ``icing accountability''), but the Level 7 FTD continued 
to require significantly more aerodynamic data for no more value than 
the Level 6 FTD. The elimination of the Level 7 FTD does not preclude 
any Level 6 FTD from incorporating a Level C data package and having 
essentially the same kind of device as the originally described Level 7 
device. However, there has been essentially no difference between the 
two levels in authorized use, and it made little sense to continue with 
a Level 7 FTD when there was little difference between a Level 6 and 
Level 7 FTD.
    The FAA is considering future rulemaking to develop standards for 
Level 7 FTDs for helicopters. Any new requirements would be subject to 
notice and comment.
Rule vs. QPS
    Continental asserts that there is a conflict between the rule and 
the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS). Continental states that 
the rule addresses a number of technical issues that would be best 
delegated to the QPS, and also notes that parts of the rule and its 
application have different definitions than the QPS.
    FAA Response: In the final rule, we eliminated the repetition of 
the rule language in the QPS appendices because it was never the FAA's 
intent to have different definitions for terms in the rule and the QPS 
appendices. The FAA has also revised the rule language and the QPS 
appendices so that technical information is presented in the most 
appropriate sections and formats.
Codified Design Criteria
    Northwest writes, ``The proposed regulation should be streamlined 
to centrally codify simulator design and qualification criteria.''
    FAA Response: The FAA deems it appropriate to stop short of 
establishing a regulation mandating the design and construction 
criteria for these devices. While the FAA has type certificate 
requirements for aircraft instead of individual qualification 
requirements like we have for FSTDs, the FAA is not including such 
requirements in this final rule. We believe requiring a type 
certificate process would create the potential for enormous cost 
increases with virtually no gain in the quality of the devices.
Clarification of Requirements and Oversight Responsibilities
    TWA and CAE were concerned with the lack of clarity in the rule 
language. Specifically, TWA wants the rule rewritten clearly stating 
FAA's intentions and adding that the National Simulator Program Manager 
(NSPM) has full authority over FSTDs and all results of other 
inspections must go through the NSPM before action can be taken. CAE 
expressed a similar concern.
    FAA Response: The FAA revised the part 60 rule language and QPS 
appendices to ensure the requirements are clear. The QPS appendices 
provide examples and additional information and criteria outlining the 
method of compliance with the regulations. In addition, the FAA has 
clarified the NSPM will exercise oversight responsibility for the 
evaluation and qualification of all FSTDs included in part 60.
Use of FSTDs in the Course of Training
    FlightSafety Boeing (FSB) believes part 60 ``should be limited to 
the definition, design criteria, required documentation and record-
keeping of Flight Simulation Devices, and the evaluation process to 
assure continued functionality as designed, for the respective level of 
device.'' In FSB's opinion the authority on planned or actual use of 
FSTDs in the course of training should remain with the respective 
sponsor of the device and the Training Program Approval Authority 
(TPAA) as presently required in existing regulations. Also, FSB writes 
that all proposed wording addressing the continued use of a device be 
eliminated, including the words ``and use'' in the title of the 
proposal.
    FAA Response: The final rule addresses the definition, required 
documentation and record keeping for

[[Page 63396]]

FSTDs. It also outlines the evaluation process to assure continued 
functionality of FSTDs, including the objective and subjective 
requirements. However, as stated earlier, the FAA has determined it is 
not appropriate to include FSTD ``design criteria'' in the final rule. 
Also, the phrase ``and use'' in the title of the part 60 rule does not 
apply to the actual ``use'' of an FSTD in the course of training 
approved by the TPAA. Rather, the term refers to those uses of the FSTD 
for which representatives of the NSPM have qualified a specific FSTD.
NSP Office
    TechniFlite states, ``There should be an official (rather than 
implied or assumed) FAA office established at the Washington level to 
be responsible for the oversight of the National Simulation Program. 
This office could be responsible for reviewing appeals when disputes 
with the NSP arise.''
    FAA Response: The NSP is part of the Flight Standards Service. 
Specifically, it is part of the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 
and answers directly to the AFS-200 manager in Washington, DC. An 
appeals process is outlined in Sec. Sec.  60.5(d) and 60.29(b). In both 
cases, the Director of the Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, is the 
person/office to whom appeals should be made.
Level of Detail in Regulations
    Thales Training & Simulation (Thales) ``objects to the way that our 
regulations are becoming so overly prescriptive.''
    FAA Response: The part 60 rule is, for the most part, a 
codification of existing practices. However, there are new requirements 
such as the QMS requirement in Sec.  60.5. The FAA, working with the 
ARC, including Thales, developed requirements that balance safety 
concerns without being overly burdensome.

Necessity of the Rule

    Several commenters question whether this rule is needed. American 
Airlines states that it has worked closely with the NSPM to develop its 
simulator program and it believes it has the highest quality simulator 
program in the world. American sees ``nothing in the NPRM that will 
result in an increase in the quality or effectiveness of the American 
Airlines training program.'' Similarly the National Business Aviation 
Association (NBAA) does not think the rule will result in a safety 
enhancement, stating that, ``there has been no evidence that the 
current system of certifying and maintaining flight simulator devices 
has compromised safety in any way.'' The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA) states that the proposed rule ``places an 
unnecessary regulatory burden on the aviation industry, and it does not 
address a safety problem or provide a net safety benefit.'' Storm Haven 
Aviation and a flight instructor make similar comments.
    FAA Response: Codifying simulation qualification standards provides 
for a ``level playing field'' among FSTD manufacturers and sponsors in 
the United States and a harmonization of interests internationally. 
Further, these provisions, together with the provision for a QMS, will 
provide each sponsor a clear understanding of what is required of them 
for a satisfactory FSTD. The FAA also notes that part 60 is largely a 
codification of existing practices, and does not impose significantly 
new burdens. The FAA recognizes the close working relationship that 
exists between the NSPM and a large portion of the aviation training 
community. That close working relationship continues with this 
rulemaking effort and should continue after the rule becomes effective. 
The FAA believes that the rule will result in an increase in the 
quality and effectiveness of flight training programs without an undue 
burden on the industry.

Withdraw NPRM

    Air Transport Association (ATA) requests the immediate withdrawal 
of the NPRM and the formation of an industry-government advisory 
committee to develop a new proposed rule. In support of this request, 
ATA states five general concerns with the NPRM:

    1. If published as currently written, the NPRM would eliminate 
the use of a significant number of simulators until they could be 
qualified or replaced.
    2. The proposed rule ignores harmonization efforts between the 
FAA, the JAA, and the simulator industry.
    3. The FAA currently is revising Subparts N & O of FAR Part 121, 
which deal directly with crew training and the practical use of 
FSTD. However, the NPRM overlaps and implicates training 
requirements, and thus it is impossible to determine the overall 
impacts of the NPRM until the training requirements of Subparts N & 
O are revised or clarified.
    4. The NSP, or each responsible TPAA, would have to be manned on 
a 24 hour/7 days per week basis to administer the proposed FAR Part 
60 requirements in order to prevent unnecessary FSTD downtime.
    5. The NPRM places a severe financial burden on U.S. airlines. 
The cost of the NPRM is not justified by its benefits.

    Several other commenters, including Bombardier, FedEx, American 
Trans Air, TWA, Continental, and DHL agree with ATA's position that the 
NPRM should be immediately withdrawn and that an industry-government 
advisory committee should be convened to develop a new proposed rule. 
Other commenters did not specifically cite the ATA position, but did 
suggest that a more effective rule would be achieved through government 
and industry collaboration.
    FAA Response: Rather than withdraw the NPRM, the FAA established 
the ARC. The overwhelming majority of the ARC members, including ATA 
members and an ATA representative, participated in the development of 
recommendations to the FAA. As proposed in the NPRM, each currently 
qualified FSTD will continue to be evaluated against the criteria 
current at the time of that FSTDs original evaluation (67 FR 60291). No 
currently qualified FSTDs will be disqualified because of the new part 
60 evaluation requirements. Therefore, the FAA does not expect that 
anyone will be ``driven back into the airplane'' for training, testing, 
or checking because of the part 60 final rule.
    In addition, the standards contained in the final rule have been 
modified so they are more in line with ICAO and JAA standards. Also, as 
mentioned previously, the FAA is continuing its efforts to achieve the 
desired level of harmonization. The FAA would like to note that part 60 
is not interdependent with and does not overlap the rulemaking effort 
to revise 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O. The part 121, Subparts N 
and O rulemaking deals directly with flight crewmember training and the 
practical use of FSTDs, while part 60 deals with the standards for FSTD 
qualification and evaluation.

Cost of the Proposed Rule

    A group of commenters cite cost as the reason the NPRM should be 
withdrawn. AOPA states that the proposed rule places an unnecessary 
regulatory burden by imposing a large cost without properly identifying 
the cost impact. TechniFlite explains that with the cooperation of the 
FAA and industry, initiatives can be taken to make significant 
reductions in the cost of simulators thereby making simulators more 
available to the broader needs of the industry. Professional Instrument 
Courses believes that the proposed rule would add needless expense to 
their company with no gain in the quality of safety of their program 
and would put their successful 22-year-old instrument flight training 
company out of business.
    FAA Response: The FAA continues to believe that training in an FSTD 
is most effective when the FSTD closely

[[Page 63397]]

matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft 
being simulated. Accordingly, training and checking activities should 
be accomplished only in those devices that are objectively and 
subjectively evaluated. The rule creates no new technical requirements 
for qualification of the basic levels of FTDs. The NSPM has maintained 
an open and continuous dialogue with aircraft simulator manufacturers 
and users. This dialogue continues to enhance the quality of 
simulation, improve the evaluation of simulation devices, and reduce 
the costs of acquiring, evaluating, and using these devices for flight 
crewmember training and checking. It is the FAA's intent to maintain 
this on-going effort.

Advisory Circulars vs. Regulations (Appendices A-D)

    Three commenters disagree with including the advisory language that 
currently exists in the Advisory Circulars (ACs) for airplane 
simulators and flight training devices in the proposed rule. Delta 
states that the advisory language is very lengthy and detailed and that 
after incorporating this language into the rule, the FAA and users will 
need to strictly abide by it and any changes would need to go through a 
lengthy revision process. Regional Airline Association (RAA) says the 
proposed QPS appendices are written as ``engineering standards,'' as 
opposed to performance standards. RAA believes the FAA should adopt 
performance based regulations whenever possible because they allow for 
flexibility and freedom for innovation. RAA states its concern that 
even seemingly minor requests for deviations from the QPS appendices 
content will require that operators/owners petition the FAA for 
deviation approval, a process it says takes weeks and most often months 
for approval. In addition, RAA notes, ``no specific instances of the 
proposal were mentioned as to industry's failure to constructively use 
and follow the content of the AC's.'' FSI says the NPRM preamble 
incorrectly explains that the FAA is proposing to remove the technical 
requirements from part 121 and place them in the new part 60. FSI 
maintains that these requirements have always been advisory and not 
regulatory, and recommends that the FAA clearly acknowledge that a 
major purpose of this rulemaking is to make previously advisory 
material mandatory.
    The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) agrees 
completely with moving the requirements into the proposed rule. It 
applauds and unequivocally supports the FAA's efforts to make these 
requirements regulatory rather than advisory.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that the QPS appendices are written 
as an engineering standard, rather than as a performance standard. The 
QPS appendices are a codification of existing advisory material that 
was used to determine whether or not a specific FSTD met FAA 
requirements. These standards have always been ``performance 
standards,'' involving an objective and subjective evaluation of the 
device in comparison to the aircraft. There has never been a 
requirement for an ``engineering standard'' in simulation beyond that 
which is necessary to meet the stated performance objectives. Part 60 
does not change these requirements.
    The decision to codify FSTD qualification requirements was made 
after careful consideration of facts and circumstances. This decision 
is not a result of ``industry's failure to constructively use and 
follow the content of the AC's.'' Rather, the FAA has determined that 
continued oversight through the issuance and application of ACs is not 
appropriate. Executive Order 12866 states ``(e)ach agency shall draft 
its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of 
minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from 
such uncertainty'' [section 1(b)(12)]. Additionally, Section 5-1 of FAA 
Order 1320.46A, ``Advisory Circular System,'' states that

    AC's are not regulations and may not impose or lessen a burden 
on anyone, nor have a mandatory effect. AC's may not be used to add 
to, interpret, or relieve a duty imposed by a Federal Aviation 
Regulation (FAR). Advisory circulars may set forth `acceptable 
means' or `methods of compliance' with a particular FAR. However, 
the language used to explain the compliance methods in the AC must 
not imply that it is the only or minimum acceptable means, nor 
require other methods of compliance to be `equivalent' to the one 
described in the AC.
    In order to be legally valid, a regulation must establish a 
requirement or standard that is sufficiently clear to persons required 
to comply with it so that they can have a reasonable understanding of 
what is expected of them, without having to resort to material not 
published in the rule. In other words, the regulation must be able to 
stand on its own. The regulations that support the current set of ACs 
describing simulation standards are found in 14 CFR part 121, Subpart N 
and, since 1980, part 121, appendix H. However, in neither of these 
rule sections is the regulatory language sufficient to meet the 
requirement that persons would not have to resort to additional 
material not published in the rule. Additionally, while FSTD 
qualification standards have been contained in ACs, they have been 
treated as though they were regulatory. Clearly, this practice is not 
in compliance with either the EO or the FAA Order. Therefore, the 
development of a rule for the qualification of FSTDs was imperative.
    Due to a comment, the FAA recognized that it did not have rule 
language in the part 60 NPRM that proposed to remove technical FSTD 
requirements from part 121. In the final rule, we have removed from 
part 121 those technical FSTD requirements that are in part 60. It was 
an administrative oversight that we neglected to propose removing 
technical FSTD requirements from part 121, but we were clear in the 
NPRM that part 60 would serve as the regulatory part for FSTD 
qualification and evaluation.
    The FAA is aware that there are differences in the application of 
what may be authorized under an advisory circular concept and what may 
be required or authorized under a regulatory concept. However, the 
language of this final rule has been carefully constructed to 
accommodate ``operations and engineering judgment'' when applying 
flight test data to objective test requirements and tolerances. The 
goal was to allow the logical application of this judgment while, at 
the same time, not allow complete ``free play'' with FAA standards.

QPS Document

    FSI states ``The Qualification Performance Standard (QPS) contains 
regulatory language that appears only in the QPS. The combination of 
information, data, and regulatory language will create misunderstanding 
between FAA and the industry.'' In addition, FSI believes that the 
``tabular technical requirements in the QPS are also confusing due to 
the outdated condition of the tolerances and test descriptions.'' FSI 
further states, ``The most glaring of the unrealistic requirements in 
the QPS is the motion system `specifications.' In the past when rules 
have attempted to define hardware and software simulator system 
`specifications,' the rules became obsolete before they were 
published.'' Therefore, FSI recommends the QPS define tolerances, not 
design specifications.
    TWA states that the ``direct quote or a paraphrasing of the Part 60 
rule'' in the QPS documents is sometimes very confusing and sometimes 
they are in disagreement with the rule. TWA recommends removing them to 
make the QPS smaller and easier to use.

[[Page 63398]]

    FAA Response: The FAA has revised the final rule to eliminate the 
motion system standards published in the NPRM. Additionally, the FAA 
has removed the part 60 rule language from the QPS appendices to avoid 
confusion and repetition. The FAA recognizes the necessity of 
additional modifications to certain sections of the QPS appendices that 
are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA is continuing to revise the 
QPS, and any recommendations for changes to part 60 will be available 
for public review and comment as an NPRM prior to being adopted. It is 
the FAA's intent the part 60 final rule not be effective until the 
first revision of the QPS appendices have been published in the Federal 
Register as a final rule.

Related to N&O Rulemaking

    FSI notes that the preamble states ``In a separate rulemaking 
project that will follow this proposal, other portions of appendix H 
would be moved to a new subpart of part 121, and appendix H would be 
deleted.'' Concerned that timely action may not be taken and 
considering the length of time for rulemakings, FSI requests that the 
FAA make the necessary and proper conforming changes now and amend 
Sec.  121.407 and delete appendix H.
    Air Transport Association (ATA) states that this NPRM and subparts 
N and O of part 121 are very closely linked, and ``recommends that any 
proposed changes to Subparts N and O be coordinated with this 
rulemaking and, in particular, that any changes to Subparts N and O 
precede this rulemaking.''
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 14 CFR part 121, appendix H has 
both technical requirements and operational authorizations. By 
``removing and reserving'' certain sections in the current part 121, 
appendix H, (i.e., those sections dealing with technical requirements 
of FFSs) without canceling the entire appendix, the remaining sections 
of appendix H will continue to serve operational necessities until such 
time as appendix H is cancelled. The requirements contained in 14 CFR 
121.407 are not contrary to the requirements contained in part 60.
    Changes to 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O will include 
references to FSTDs, but only to the extent of defining what tasks may 
be authorized for part 121 flight crewmembers in a given level of FSTD. 
Part 60, including all of the evaluation and qualification 
requirements, is not dependent upon or interdependent with, any future 
Subparts N and O changes that may be proposed or adopted.

Harmonization and ICAO

    Many commenters address the issue of harmonization of FAA's FSD 
qualification standards with those of ICAO and the JAA. Boeing, United, 
Continental, American, FSI, FSB, NLX, CAE, and Eclipse are concerned 
that the NPRM does not include recent industry efforts to harmonize the 
latest regulatory standards for the qualification of FSDs. Delta 
commented that an opportunity to revise the rule would provide a chance 
to define an improved revision process for the advisory material and to 
incorporate harmonization with the ICAO Manual of Criteria for the 
Qualification of Flight Simulators. Eclipse states that the ICAO Manual 
of the Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, 2nd 
edition, which was endorsed by the FAA, should be incorporated into the 
QPS appendices. Continental states that a lack of harmonization will 
impose a financial burden on the carriers when they sponsor or use FSDs 
that are currently approved under the ICAO standard. American states 
that, instead of matching the ICAO criteria, the NPRM appendices 
contain a version of the criteria contained in the Draft AC 120-40C, 
modified with additional requirements. American states that since the 
FAA is on record as planning to eventually adopt the ICAO criteria, 
there is no reason not to do it in this rule.
    NLX comments that although updating the QPS should not require the 
lengthy time frames experienced with changes like AC 120-40C, the 
industry has no assurance this will occur. NLX is concerned that after 
the rule is in place, updating the QPS will result in an extended time 
frame of possibly several years during which the industry must comply 
with the obsolete requirements. NLX states that, without some guarantee 
that this will not be the case, it recommends that the QPS be updated 
to reflect the latest JAR/ICAO material before the rule is put into 
effect.
    FSB states that the proposed FAA standards are significantly 
different from the JAR STD 1A requirements, which are stricter. FSB 
urges the FAA to reconsider the timetable so as to include the recent 
updates to the ICAO 9625, JAR STD 1A and to remove changes to the 
motion standards in appendix A, which were vigorously disapproved by 
industry when added to the AC 120-40C. If the plan is to go forth with 
the rulemaking process with the existing differences, FSB strongly 
suggests that the FAA comment on an implementation plan and timetable 
for complete harmonization to take place.
    United comments that the proposed standards decouple the functional 
and subjective test requirements from the FSD qualification level and 
require an FSD qualification task list without offering any criteria 
against which such tasks would be approved. United states that this is 
a break from past FAA practice, from the current JAA practice, and from 
the recommendations in the ICAO Manual.
    Boeing comments that considerable industry time and expense has 
been expended over the past years to harmonize the standards. The 
results of these efforts have been incorporated into the ICAO Manual 
and are in the process of being incorporated into the JAA's JAR-STD 1A 
document, Aeroplane Flight Simulators. In addition, Boeing states, a 
set of ``best practices'' advisory material has been developed and is 
being included in both JAR-STD 1A and ICAO Document 9625. According to 
Boeing,

    The latest standards and best practices material has not been 
included in the FAA's proposed Part 60. If the NPRM were to go 
forward as proposed, there would be two different sets of standards 
for the regulated public to comply with. This would impose an 
unnecessary adverse economic impact on the industry, including the 
data provider. We consider that the proposed Part 60, as currently 
structured, would be unacceptable to the industry, and both 
difficult and costly for the FAA to administer. We strongly 
recommend that the FAA revise the NPRM prior to any further action.

Boeing includes in its comments an extensive history of the 
harmonization efforts and detailed suggestions on how to harmonize the 
NPRM with the JAA and ICAO material.

    CAE comments that ``The United States has been a leading voice in 
encouraging other countries to adopt and maintain international 
standards; implementation of Part 60 regulations that are inconsistent 
with ICAO standards would undermine the U.S. Government's credibility 
in making these arguments to other countries.''
    Several commenters disagreed with the statement in the NPRM 
paragraph on ``International Compatibility'' that the FAA had 
identified ``no differences'' between the proposal and the ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices. Thales Training and Simulation 
states ``where there are major deviations between the proposed Part 60 
standards and the latest agreed ICAO standards, the motion requirements 
being a good example, industry needs to be aware of how the Part 60 
standards will evolve towards the ICAO standards. It is

[[Page 63399]]

unreasonable for industry to be expected to expend major investment to 
meet a standard that may only be in existence for a few months.'' CAE 
states there are several instances in which the proposed rule 
significantly differs from ICAO standards, including areas such as 
latency, tolerances, organization of validation test cases, numbering, 
and definitions. CAE recommends that the FAA identify and clarify the 
differences between the two standards and confirm whether the ICAO 
standards could be used as an acceptable alternative for obtaining FAA 
qualification of an FSD. ATA states that the rule should not be 
published until the QPS documents are updated to reflect the ICAO 
guidance.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes it is necessary for simulator 
qualification technical requirements to reflect international standards 
as appropriate. The FAA plans to harmonize the simulator qualification 
technical requirements as part of the first revision of the QPS 
appendices.

Impacts on General Aviation

    Several commenters are concerned about the impact of the proposed 
rule on the use of FSDs by general aviation, particularly with respect 
to Level 1-3 FTDs.
    FSI states that the NPRM preamble language stating that ``other 
certificate holders may seek approval to use the same FSD'' seems to 
eliminate non-certificate holders, such as corporate or private 
operators under part 91, from doing the same thing. FSI comments that 
fractional ownership operators would be precluded from being sponsors 
by the same wording.
    Fidelity comments that due to the recent advent of affordable, 
significant computing power, general aviation is able to use advanced 
simulation and that part 61 allows for a significant usage of FSDs. 
Fidelity comments that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether a 
sponsor must be a certificate holder in order to use the FSD for part 
61 training.
    NAFI is also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed 
rule on general aviation flight instruction. NAFI states that the 
required level of actual aircraft emulation for high-end, full motion 
simulation should be vastly different from general aviation flight 
training devices, and this proposed rule appears to lump them together. 
Specifically, NAFI states, smaller operators with less sophisticated 
FTDs will be unnecessarily burdened by the required establishment of 
the QAP and daily inspections.
    National Air Transportation Association (NATA) comments that the 
proposal seems to give consideration only to training that targets 
commercial and high-end corporate aircraft operators and makes no 
attempt to provide a framework that enables the greater deployment of 
these devices for light general aviation and corporate aircraft. 
Furthermore, NATA states that placing the responsibility for 
qualification of FSDs and FTDs with the National Simulator Program 
Office will limit the ability of the aviation industry to use such 
devices.
    FAA Response: Only those persons required to have an FAA approved 
flight training program or otherwise authorized under Sec.  60.7 are 
eligible to sponsor an FSTD. The FAA acknowledges that Fractional 
Ownership Program Managers are required by Sec.  91.1073 to have an FAA 
approved flight training program. However, this requirement did not 
exist when the proposed part 60 was being drafted because the 
fractional program regulations had not been finalized. It is beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking project to include Fractional Ownership 
Program Managers as eligible FSTD sponsors. Therefore, the FAA will 
initiate a separate rulemaking project to incorporate Fractional 
Ownership Program Managers into the class of persons eligible to 
sponsor FSTDs. The FAA does not intend to allow other part 91 operators 
to be FSTD sponsors because they are not required to have an FAA 
approved flight training program.
    The FAA has not included the qualification requirements for Level 2 
and 3 FTDs in this final rule. The FAA has determined that these 
devices should continue to be monitored and qualified under advisory 
material. The FAA has posted, for comment, an Advisory Circular 
providing guidance about the evaluation and approval of Basic Aircraft 
Training Devices and Advanced Aircraft Training Devices. To view and 
comment on the Advisory Circular go to the following Web address: 
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs

Conforming Changes (Parts 61, 63, 125, 137, 141, and 142)

    FSI states that training, testing, and checking requirements of 
parts 125 and 137 may be accomplished in FSDs, but there is no 
reference to these parts. FSI suggests that the FAA clearly state the 
permitted uses of FSDs.
    FSI, NATA, University Aviation Association (UAA), and Purdue 
University comment that the NPRM states that the devices described in 
Sec.  61.4 may be used only for private pilot certification and 
instrument ratings. These commenters state that training for a 
commercial pilot certificate and training under part 141, Pilot 
Schools, can also be done in an approved training device; they ask the 
FAA to verify the uses permitted for approved training devices under 
parts 61 and 141.
    FSI states that it is mandatory to withdraw appendix H of part 121 
in order for part 60 to be possible. FSI also cites other sections that 
should be changed (e.g., Sec. Sec.  121.407, 135.335, 142.59, 141.41, 
135.324, 135.321, and 121.402). FSI suggests that the FAA conduct a 
comprehensive review of all rules that may be in contradiction to part 
60 and make the appropriate changes.
    FAA Response: The permitted uses of FSTDs for credit purposes 
(i.e., to meet airmen certification standards or certain commercial 
operator training requirements) are a topic for a different rule. Part 
60 addresses only the requirements for the evaluation and qualification 
of FSTDs. Section 61.4 does not state that FSTDs may only be used for 
private pilot certification and the instrument rating. Rather, Sec.  
61.4(a) specifically refers to ``any training, testing, or checking 
requirement under this chapter.'' ``This chapter'' refers to Chapter I, 
Subchapter D (Airmen), and specifically, all airmen, certificates, and 
ratings falling under the purview of part 61, Certification of pilots, 
flight instructors, and ground instructors.
    It is not necessary to withdraw all of 14 CFR part 121, appendix H 
because of part 60. As stated earlier, the FAA is ``removing and 
reserving'' appropriate sections of appendix H to eliminate those 
technical requirements that have been moved into part 60 and is 
retaining those operational requirements in appendix H until such time 
as those sections are combined in a subsequent rulemaking effort and 
appendix H is cancelled. Additionally, the requirements contained in 
Sec. Sec.  121.407, 135.335, 141.41, and 142.59 are not contrary to the 
requirements contained in part 60. The FAA has reviewed all other 
sections to see if any additional conforming changes need to be made 
because of part 60.
    In addition, the FAA has determined that the conforming changes to 
parts 61, 141, and 142 proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary 
since Level 2 and 3 FTDs are not included in this final rule.

Impact on Part 142

    FSI states that when part 142 was issued, training centers were 
given regulatory assurance that if they did certain things, the 
Administrator was obligated to issue a certificate under that part. FSI 
believes that for the FAA to propose now that another step is

[[Page 63400]]

required, i.e., gaining approval as a sponsor, is improper. Also, FSI 
states training centers were told they would not be required to have 
any specific relationship with an air carrier, yet under this proposal 
a training center may have to have an air carrier client as the sponsor 
of the FSD, for example, to meet the minimum annual usage requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA eliminated the hourly usage requirements for 
sponsor qualification. The FAA eliminated the proposed requirement for 
sponsor utilization of additional simulators, except for the initial 
FSTD to qualify an applicant for a part 142 Training Certificate or the 
initial FSTD as part of a part 119 FAA-approved flight training 
program. The FAA has determined that these proposed requirements are 
not necessary because the requirements for an FAA approved training 
program are sufficiently robust to ensure safety.

Elimination of Exemptions

    AOPA states that the proposal places additional regulatory burdens 
on the entire aviation industry, including small pilot training 
centers, simply to allow the FAA to rid itself of the burden of issuing 
exemptions to part 125 and 135 operators who wish to use Level A-D 
flight simulators under part 121, appendix H. Instead, AOPA suggests 
making the appropriate changes in parts 125, 135, and 142 by cross 
referencing part 121, appendix H. According to AOPA, the proposal 
should then be modified to address only part 125 and 135 operators and 
Level A-D flight simulators.
    FAA Response: The purpose of this final rule is not to relieve the 
FAA of the task of issuing exemptions. The requirements set out under 
part 60 are for the evaluation and qualification of FSTDs, a task that 
the FAA has to perform regardless of whether the device will be used in 
air carrier operations or not. This final rule codifies existing 
practices and provides uniform standards for all FSTDs regardless of 
where they will be used. Authorized uses under any individual part of 
14 CFR are contained in the respective part. Therefore, even if a 
device is evaluated and qualified for certain tasks and maneuvers, the 
FAA, independent of part 60, will still need to determine whether the 
device is suitable for use in a particular FAA approved training 
program.

Comments Regarding Definitions

    ATA states that the definition of flight simulator uses the term 
``series'' of aircraft, while the definition of flight training device 
uses ``set'' of aircraft. Since proposed Sec.  60.3 does not define 
``series'' of aircraft and since an aircraft series meets the proposed 
definition for ``set of aircraft'' and a definition for ``set of 
aircraft'' is already proposed, ATA recommends that the term ``series'' 
should be deleted and replaced with the term ``set of aircraft'' 
throughout the document. In addition, the term ``ground operation'' 
should be replaced with the term ``surface operation,'' since surface 
operation is utilized in Attachment 3 to appendix A as operational task 
b. ``Surface Operations.'' Also, ATA notes that the definition of 
flight training device uses the term ``full size replica,'' while 
appendix B does not use this term in describing the FTD requirements. 
ATA recommends using the language in appendix B, while Delta suggests 
using ``realistic replica'' instead of ``full size replica.''
    CAE states that in the definition of ``evaluation'' in the use of 
``etc.'' is open to interpretation and should be removed. Likewise, CAE 
claims that the word ``performance'' is used in a very general sense in 
the definition of ``flight test data'' and in many other places. CAE 
states, ``Performance in simulators has traditionally meant airplane 
performance with regard to thrust/drag relationships, climb, range, 
etc.'' CAE recommends defining ``Approved data supplier'' as ``the 
aircraft manufacturer or other supplier of data acceptable to the 
NSPM.'' CAE also recommends defining ``Performance'' as ``the overall 
performance of the FSD to include aerodynamic performance as well as 
flight and ground handling.'' Additionally, CAE recommends changing the 
definition for ``flight test data'' to ``Actual aircraft performance 
data collected by an approved data supplier during an aircraft flight 
test program. This includes the aircraft on the ground test data as 
well as in the air.''
    FSI states that the definition of ``flight experience'' is at odds 
with Sec.  61.1 and other parts of 14 CFR. FSI recommends deleting this 
definition or more accurately defining it.
    Boeing recommends changing the phrase ``actual or predicted 
aircraft performance data'' in the definition of ``objective test'' to 
``final test or approved aircraft data'' because it is not clear what 
is meant by ``actual'' or ``predicted'' data. Boeing states that 
``predicted data'' should apply to data that are truly predicted, i.e., 
data that are estimated for regions of the flight envelope where there 
are no relevant flight test data (for example, for very high angle of 
attack), or for a new airplane configuration that has not yet been 
flight-tested. Boeing believes the