Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use, 59600-59903 [07-4884]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 203 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59600-59903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4884]



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59600]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 60

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Notice No. 07-14]
RIN 2120-AJ12


Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing 
Qualification and Use

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance 
Standards (QPS) for flight simulation training devices (FSTD) and add a 
new level of simulation for helicopter flight training devices (FTD). 
The FAA proposes to codify existing practice by requiring all existing 
FSTD visual scenes that are beyond the number required for 
qualification to meet specified requirements. The proposal also 
reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides 
additional information on validation tests, established parameters for 
tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data 
sources. The proposed changes would ensure that the training and 
testing environment is accurate and realistic, would codify existing 
practice, and would provide greater harmonization with the 
international standards document for simulation. None of these proposed 
technical requirements would apply to simulators qualified before May 
30, 2008, except for the proposal to codify existing practice regarding 
certain visual scene requirements. The over-all impact of this proposal 
would result in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and 
sponsors.

DATES: Send your comments on or before December 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2002-
12461 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to the Docket 
Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor 
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 
202-493-2251.
    Privacy Act: We will post all comments we receive, without change, 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward 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: Part 60 was originally added to Title 14 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations on October 30, 2006, with an effective 
date of October 30, 2007. In a document published in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the 
effective date was delayed until May 30, 2008. This proposed rule would 
change the appendices of Part 60 originally published on October 30, 
2006.
    Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we 
discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle 
your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about 
the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential 
business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this 
proposal and related rulemaking documents.

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.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposal
II. Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) Amendment Process
III. Background
    A. Current Qualification Requirements
    B. Harmonization with International Standards
    C. Compliance
IV. The Proposal
    A. Visual Scenes and Airport Models; Class I, Class II, and 
Class III Airports; and the FSTD Directive for Class II Visual 
Scenes and Airport Models
    B. New Requirements for Objective Testing Standards
    C. New Requirements for Motion Systems for Full Flight 
Simulators and Level 7 Helicopter Flight Training Devices
    D. New Requirements for Visual Systems for Level C and D Full 
Flight Simulators
    E. New Requirements for Sound Systems for Level D Simulators
    F. New Requirements for Subjective Testing Standards for Visual 
Scenes and Airport Models
    G. New Level 7 Helicopter FSTD Requirements
    H. Quality Management Systems
    I. New Information on Operation and Testing Requirements for 
FSTDs
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Summary of the Proposal

    The primary purpose of this NPRM is to ensure that the training and 
testing environment is accurate and realistic and provide greater 
harmonization with the international standards document for simulation. 
The proposed requirements are expected to reduce expenses and workload 
for simulator sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards. 
These modifications incorporate technological advances in, encourage 
innovation of, and standardize the initial and continuing qualification 
requirements for FSTDs that are consistent with the requirements 
recently established by the international flight simulation community.
    The secondary purpose of this rulemaking project is to reorganize, 
simplify, and improve the readability of the QPS appendices. This 
proposal also clarifies and codifies certain standards presently 
contained in advisory circulars. In addition, the FAA proposes to amend 
the Qualification Performance

[[Page 59601]]

Standards (QPS) for flight simulation training devices (FSTD) and add a 
new level of simulation for helicopter flight training devices (FTD).
    The FAA is proposing the following improvements to its FSTD 
qualification requirements:
     Provide a listing of the tasks for which a simulator may 
be qualified.
     Require the collection of objective test data during 
currently required aircraft certification testing for specific FSTD 
functions, including: Idle and emergency descents, and pitch trim rates 
for use in airplane simulators; engine inoperative rejected takeoffs 
for use in helicopter simulators; and takeoffs, hover, vertical climbs, 
and normal landings for use in helicopter flight training devices.
     Provide in the QPS additional information for sponsors on 
the testing requirements for FSTDs, including the use of alternative 
data sources when complete flight test data are not available or lesser 
technically complex levels of simulation are being developed.
     Clarify and standardize existing requirements for motion, 
visual, and sound systems, including subjective buffeting motions, 
visual scene content, and sound replication.
     By FSTD Directive require each Class II visual scene or 
airport model available in any FFS, regardless of the original 
qualification date, to meet the requirements described in Table A3C 
(Appendix A, Attachment 3) or Table C3C (Appendix C, Attachment 3), as 
appropriate.
     Clarify existing Quality Management System (QMS) 
requirements by removing non-regulatory information.
    Except for the FSTD Directive, manufacturers and sponsors would not 
be required to incorporate any of the changes listed above for existing 
FSTDs. The appendices and attachments to part 60 affected by this 
proposal would only apply to FSTDs that come into service after part 60 
is effective (currently May 30, 2008). The proposed changes to the QMS 
program would eliminate potentially confusing information that 
addresses the voluntary portions of a QMS program. The FAA anticipates 
that this proposal would result in minimal to no cost increases for 
manufacturers and sponsors.

II. Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) Amendment Process

    The part 60 Final Rule contains six QPS appendices: Appendix A--
Airplane Full Flight Simulators; Appendix B--Airplane Flight Training 
Devices; Appendix C--Helicopter Full Flight Simulators; Appendix D--
Helicopter Flight Training Devices; Appendix E--Quality Management 
Systems for Flight Simulation Training Devices; and Appendix F--
Definitions and Abbreviations for Flight Simulation Training Devices.
    The QPS amendment process is faster than the traditional rulemaking 
process. It is designed to allow modifications to be implemented in a 
substantially shortened timeframe. In the part 60 Final Rule published 
October 30, 2006, (71 FR 63392), the FAA explained that the ``fast 
track'' QPS amendment process would be used to incorporate technical 
changes to flight simulation standards. The FAA anticipated QPS 
amendments based on several factors such as analysis of incident and 
accident data or changes in aircraft or simulation technology. Changes 
to the QPS documents are published in the Federal Register as an NPRM 
unless ``good cause'' exists under the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA), which would warrant the FAA publishing a change to a QPS 
document without following the standard notice and comment procedures. 
Under the APA, in order for the FAA to issue a rule without following 
notice and comment procedures, the FAA would have to make a good cause 
finding that following notice and comment procedures would be 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
    Although proposed QPS amendments are published in the Federal 
Register for public comment, the authority for final review and 
issuance of the NPRM has been delegated from the Administrator to the 
Director of Flight Standards Service. The delegation of authority 
facilitates timely implementation of improved technological advances. 
This delegation of authority is exercised in conjunction with the 
Office of the Chief Counsel. If at any time during the amendment 
process the Administrator, Chief Counsel, or the Director of Flight 
Standards Service determines that a proposed amendment is not 
appropriate for the streamlined process, the rulemaking project would 
proceed in accordance with the agency's normal rulemaking procedures.

III. Background

A. Current Qualification Requirements

    The FAA issued Part 60 to promote standardization and 
accountability for FSTD maintenance, qualification, and evaluation. The 
regulation codified the standards contained in advisory circulars and 
implemented the QPS format. The QPS appendices allow regulatory 
requirements and information to be presented in one location. This 
promotes ease of use and greater insight about the FAA's intent behind 
the regulation and the required and approved methods of compliance.

B. Harmonization With International Standards

    During the development of the part 60 Final Rule, the international 
community also began updating flight simulation standards.\1\ However, 
many of the changes recommended by the international community were 
beyond the scope of the part 60 NPRM and could not be included in the 
final rule. Rather than delay its efforts or issue a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA determined that the fastest 
approach would be to publish the part 60 Final Rule, delay the 
effective date, and amend the technical requirements under the 
expedited QPS amendment process. This approach avoided increased 
expenses, greater workload, and conflicting compliance requirements for 
sponsors who would be required to comply with part 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The international community began releasing its 
recommendations with the publication of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization's Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of 
Flight Simulators (Document 9625) in 1994. The Joint Aviation 
Authorities of Europe issued JAA-STD-1A (Synthetic Training Device--
document for airplane flight simulators) in 1998, followed by 
updates in 1999, 2001, and 2003. The first ICAO update of Document 
9625 was in January of 2004 and the most recent consideration for 
update is the release of JAR-FSTD-A and JAR-FSTD-H documents in the 
late spring of 2005 for European national regulatory authorities to 
begin their review and consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the proposed additions to the QPS provide 
information to the sponsors on objective tests. The information 
included explains why the tests are necessary, how to stage the 
simulator, and how to arrange other equipment to conduct the tests 
efficiently and produce optimum results. This information would be 
beneficial for simulator manufacturers and users.
    The proposal clarifies and codifies the standards for motion, and 
visual and sound systems. The proposal also permits a new higher level 
of simulation for helicopter FTDs. The proposal adds 2 tables of 
material for operations tasks and system tasks, which are used as a 
reference when developing the statement of qualification for the FSTD. 
The proposal also includes a set of tables describing visual scene and 
airport model requirements for FSTD qualification.
    Some of the proposed changes are marginally more stringent than the 
requirements in the October 30, 2006,

[[Page 59602]]

Final Rule. For example, a simulator qualified at Level C or Level D 
after May 30, 2008, would have the field of view and system capacity 
requirements for the visual system increased by 20 percent over the 
present requirement. The proposed requirements are consistent with 
international standards, which simulator manufacturers are currently 
following. This change improves the quality of simulation necessary to 
train and evaluate flight crewmembers. Other proposed changes are more 
flexible than the requirements prescribed in the October 30, 2006, 
Final Rule. For example, the tolerance for displacement in the control 
system ``freeplay'' test in helicopter simulators was increased from 
0.10 inches to 0.15 inches, allowing additional space to adapt aircraft 
and non-aircraft hardware for use in the simulator.\2\ This change was 
based on the FAA's belief that a 0.10 inch tolerance would create an 
undue hardship on sponsors because it would require constant adjustment 
of the controls to maintain the close tolerance. The change from 0.10 
inches to 0.15 inches is large enough to minimize the hardship on 
sponsors, and small enough to continue providing pilots with an 
accurate controller feel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Appendix C of this part, Table C2A, item 2.a.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than this change to the visual scene requirement, the 
requirements of this proposal would not apply to current simulators. In 
all instances the overall costs applicable to new simulators are 
minimal to none. The most expensive change being proposed is the 
increase in horizontal field of view for some visual system 
applications.

C. Compliance

    With the exception of QMS requirements and any FSTD Directives, 
simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, are not required to meet 
QPS requirements as long as the simulator continues to meet the 
requirements contained in the Master Qualification Test Guide that was 
developed when the simulator was originally qualified.

IV. The Proposal

A. Visual Scenes and Airport Models; Class I, Class II, and Class III 
Airports; and the FSTD Directive for Class II Visual Scenes and Airport 
Models

    Current part 60 contains requirements for the number of visual 
scenes or airport models that must be included for full flight 
simulator (FFS) qualification and a description of what the visual 
scenes or airport models must contain. Included in this proposal is a 
codification of existing practice for visual scene quality, 
environmental effects, visual feature recognition, and scene control 
and management capability. Also included is the codification of 
existing practice for updating visual scenes and airport visual models, 
including the identification of other aspects of the airport 
environment that would have to correspond with the visual scene or 
model.
    The proposal establishes the requirements for Class I, Class II, 
and Class III visual scenes and airport models already covered by ACs 
issued by the FAA. For circling approaches, all of the proposed 
requirements would apply to the runway used for the initial approach 
and to the runway of intended landing. Additional proposed requirements 
include an accurate visual relationship between the scenes or airport 
models and other aspects of the airport environment, an accurate visual 
relationship of the aircraft and associated equipment, scene quality 
assessment features, and control of these scenes or models that the 
instructor is able to exercise. The FAA believes these requirements are 
necessary to ensure realistic and accurate depiction of airports and 
visual scenes incorporated in simulators for FAA-approved training 
programs.
    Additional visual scenes or airport models beyond those necessary 
for simulator qualification may be used for various training program 
applications, including Line Oriented Flight Training, and are 
important for flight training and testing. Historically, these 
additional visual scenes or airport models were not routinely evaluated 
or required to meet any standardized criteria. This led to qualified 
simulators containing visual scenes or airport models that may have 
been incorrect or may have contained inappropriate visual references. 
To prevent this from occurring in the future, the FAA proposes to issue 
FSTD Directive (FD) Number 1. All FDs issued would be found in the FSTD 
Directive Attachments: Appendix A, Attachment 6; Appendix B, Attachment 
5, Appendix C, Attachment 5, and Appendix D, Attachment 5. FD Number 1 
is not contained in Appendix B or in Appendix D because no existing 
level of FSTD in Appendix B or Appendix D requires a visual system. 
Proposed FD Number 1 would require each simulator sponsor to verify 
that each Class II visual scene or airport model available in the FFS, 
regardless of the original qualification basis and regardless of the 
initial qualification date, meets the requirements in 14 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A, Attachment 3, Table A3C or Appendix C, Attachment 3, Table 
C3C, as applicable. FD Number 1 would apply to all FSTDs with visual 
systems containing visual scenes or airport models used as part of an 
FAA-approved curriculum that are available for use and are beyond the 
minimum number of required visual scenes or airport models required for 
qualification at the stated level. This FSTD Directive would not 
require visual scenes or airport models to contain details beyond the 
design capability of the existing qualified visual system. The 
availability of the scene or model in the FFS would serve as the 
sponsor's verification that the requirements were met. Therefore, a 
reporting requirement for these scenes or models would not be 
necessary. Currently, visual scenes and airport models available in any 
FFS that would be classified as Class II are likely to already meet the 
requirements being proposed. Additionally, each visual scene or airport 
model classified as Class II would be beyond the number of visual 
scenes or airport models required for qualification. In the event any 
Class II visual scene or airport model is found by the sponsor to be 
deficient in some way, the sponsor could remove that scene or model 
from the FFS library without jeopardizing the qualification status of 
the FFS. Alternately, the sponsor, at his or her option, may elect to 
bring the deficient aspect into compliance and retain the availability 
of that scene or model. Each sponsor has a full year to review each FFS 
during normal training, checking, or testing activities and determine 
the preferred course of action. For these reasons, the FAA has 
determined that in a few cases the cost for complying with this 
proposal would be minimal and in many cases there would be no cost to 
the sponsor.
    In addition to the proposed requirements for Class II visual scenes 
and models, the FAA also proposes to allow the continuation of the use 
of visual scenes or airport models that have been approved by the 
Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA) for specific purposes. 
Examples of approved activities include specific airport or runway 
qualification, very low visibility operations training, including 
Surface Movement Guidance System (SMGS) operations, or use of a 
specific airport visual model aligned with an instrument procedure for 
another airport for instrument training. At the end of the interim 
period, all Class III visual scenes and airport models must be 
classified as either a Class I or a Class II visual scene or airport 
model or be removed from availability at the simulator Instructor

[[Page 59603]]

Operating Stations (IOS). Class III visual scenes and airport models 
may continue to be used after the end of the interim period if they are 
part of a training program specifically approved by the TPAA or other 
regulatory authority that uses a task and capability analysis as the 
basis for approval of this specific media element, (i.e., the specific 
scene or model selected for use in that program). Because any visual 
scene or airport model that may be classified as Class III is likely to 
already have some form of a task and capability analysis completed and 
is already specifically approved by the TPAA, the FAA has determined 
that in many cases there would be no cost for complying with this 
proposal. However, if a task and capability analysis is required or if 
modification to the visual scene is necessary, then the cost would be 
minimal.

B. New Requirements for Objective Testing Standards

    The FAA proposes to revise the objective testing requirements for 
certain simulation performance areas. These revisions are necessary to 
clarify the instructions and requirements for certain tests contained 
in the final rule. In addition to changing the requirements for certain 
tests, the FAA also proposes several new tests that were not included 
in the final rule. The revised tests impact the following simulation 
performance areas:
    1. Idle and emergency descents for airplane simulators.
    2. Pitch trim rates for airplane simulators.
    3. Landing test requirements: autopilot landings and ground effect 
demonstration for airplane simulators.
    4. Takeoffs, hover, vertical climbs, and normal landings in 
helicopter flight training devices.
    5. Spiral stability tests for both airplane and helicopter 
simulators.
    6. Engine inoperative rejected takeoffs for helicopter simulators.
    7. Motion System tests for airplane and helicopter simulators and 
for helicopter flight training devices.
    8. Visual System tests for airplane and helicopter simulators and 
for helicopter flight training devices.
    9. Sound System tests for airplane and helicopter simulators.
    An example of a revised requirement is the spiral stability test 
for airplane and helicopter simulators. Under the proposal, an 
additional parameter must be measured to achieve the required results. 
For airplanes, the spiral stability test must be conducted in an 
additional flight configuration (approach or landing) instead of being 
conducted in cruise configuration only. For helicopters, the final rule 
required the helicopter to maintain the correct trend during the spiral 
stability test, whereas this proposal would require the helicopter to 
meet a specific roll or bank angle during the test. These additional 
parameters provide a more complete and accurate evaluation of the 
simulator, and ensure better replication of aircraft performance. The 
data that would be used to validate simulator performance and handling 
in these areas is obtained from lateral-directional stability tests 
conducted during normal aircraft certification flight testing. The data 
for these additional parameters are either regularly available or can 
be made available simply by activating the recording equipment when the 
test is begun.
    Another example of the revised requirements is the inclusion of an 
alternative method for validating control dynamics for the pitch, roll, 
and yaw control tests for airplane simulators.\3\ The alternative 
method would not change the requirements that the simulator must meet 
for qualification, but would allow the validation tests for control 
dynamics to be conducted on the ground rather than in-flight. The FAA 
believes this change would provide an equivalent level of safety, while 
conserving resources and providing greater flexibility for 
manufacturers and sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Appendix A of this part, Attachment 2, para. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed requirements affect only those FSTDs that will be 
coming into service after May 30, 2008, and some proposed changes may 
be marginally more stringent than the requirements in the October 30, 
2006, Final Rule, while some are less stringent. Where the proposed 
requirements are marginally more stringent than the current 
requirements the cost would be minimal.

C. New Requirements for Motion Systems for Full Flight Simulators and 
Level 7 Helicopter Flight Training Devices

    This proposal adds tables describing the motion vibration that must 
be displayed by the FSTD. The FAA proposes on-set motion cueing 
capability for airplane and helicopter FFSs and Level 7 helicopter 
FTDs. For the FFSs, the proposal includes a requirement that the motion 
cueing must be provided by a platform motion system. For the Level 7 
helicopter FTDs, the proposal would allow a method other than a 
platform motion system to be used, such as the use of a large, bass 
speaker located beneath the pilot's seat with sufficient response to 
provide vibration cues to the pilot. The proposal also eliminates 
certain requirements for ranges and rates of motion system response for 
helicopter simulators. However, the proposal would require additional 
tests that capture the motion system ``signature.'' The signature is a 
simultaneous recording of motion system responses captured while 
conducting required objective tests. The signature is recorded and may 
be compared to signatures captured in subsequent evaluations to 
determine if any differences exist. Any differences would be corrected 
to return the motion system back to its original system operation. 
Signature testing would apply to airplane and helicopter simulators.
    The October 30, 2006, Final Rule does not contain motion system 
testing requirements for airplane flight simulators. However, current 
practice (under the Advisory Circular) includes motion system testing 
that consists of ``frequency response,'' ``leg balance,'' and ``turn 
around check.'' This proposal codifies that current practice and adds 
the motion system benchmarking of a ``motion cueing performance 
signature'' and ``characteristic motion vibrations,'' both of which are 
also proposed for helicopter simulators. Motion cueing performance 
signature and characteristic motion vibrations for airplane flight 
simulators and helicopter simulators are already recorded during the 
conduct of other required objective and subjective testing for these 
simulators, thereby eliminating any cost.
    The proposal also requires the recording of motion cueing 
performance signature and characteristic motion vibrations for 
simulators and Level 7 helicopter FTDs. The proposal only requires that 
the motion cueing performance signature and the characteristic motion 
vibrations be recorded while currently required tests are being 
conducted. The motion cueing performance signature is the motion system 
response recorded during certain objective tests. The characteristic 
motion vibrations are the motion system response recorded during 
certain subjective tests.
    These proposed requirements would provide for more comprehensive 
simulator assessments. The additional cost for implementation would be 
either negligible or no cost. These requirements would also harmonize 
with the international standards document.

[[Page 59604]]

D. New Requirements for Visual Systems for Level C and D Full Flight 
Simulators

    The FAA proposes technical changes for visual systems on Level C 
and Level D simulators. For example, the FAA proposes that the surface 
resolution of objects in the visual scene must be able to be visually 
``resolved'' at 2 arc minutes rather than 3 arc minutes. Also, the 
horizontal field of view requirements would be increased from 150[deg] 
to 180[deg]. The FAA believes these requirements would provide better 
training to pilots by improving visual cues and better replicating the 
outside views. These changes would also be consistent with the current 
international standards. The requirements of this proposal would not 
apply to current simulators and the overall costs applicable to new 
simulators are minimal to none.

E. New Requirements for Sound Systems for Level D Simulators

    The FAA proposes new sound testing requirements for new Level D 
simulators. These requirements would specify basic and special case 
sound tests, and would be consistent with existing FAA advisory 
material, FAA regulations, and the standards developed by the 
international simulation working group. The proposal contains a 
standardized list of sounds that would be recorded and compared during 
initial and subsequent qualification evaluations. All new level D 
simulators would be tested for frequency response and background noise. 
There would also be specific tests based on whether the simulator is 
replicating a jet powered aircraft or a propeller powered aircraft. 
These tests would ensure accuracy in the overall sound quality of the 
device. This proposal codifies existing practice of measuring sounds 
and will result in no additional cost to the sponsor. These changes 
would also be consistent with the current international standards. The 
FAA has always required Level D simulators to have sounds recorded. 
These sounds are then measured and compared between the aircraft and 
the simulator and adjusted until they match to within stated 
tolerances. However, under current requirements there are 
inconsistencies with what sounds are to be recorded and what tolerances 
should be applied. The proposal specifies the portions of the flight 
envelope that must be recorded, therefore eliminating the previous 
inconsistencies.

F. New Requirements for Subjective Testing Standards for Visual Scenes 
and Airport Models

    The proposed requirements for visual scene and airport models for 
FFSs would codify existing advisory material, and include the 
following:
    1. Scene content--1 airport scene required for Level A and B; 3 
airport scenes required for Level C and D. The scenes must contain 
specific details, both on-airport and off-airport.
    2. Visual scene management.
    3. Visual scene recognition.
    4. Airport model content.
    5. Surrounding visual features consistent with the airport 
environment.
    6. The quality of visual scene, including correct color and 
realistic textural cues.
    7. Instructor control of environment, airport selection, and 
lighting.
    These requirements would be necessary to ensure a training 
environment that provides accurate simulation and allows pilots to 
practice skills using visual scenes and models encountered in actual 
operations. These requirements would be particularly helpful for pilots 
with lower flight experience levels.
    In addition to codifying standards for the required visual scenes 
and airport models, the FAA also proposes requirements for visual 
scenes and airport models that are included in the device by the 
sponsor, but are not required for the qualification level. In the past, 
there were no established standards for optional scenes or airport 
models that a sponsor may have incorporated in an FSTD. This created 
inconsistencies in approval methods and in the training credits issued 
for tasks completed in a device that had capability beyond what was 
required for the stated qualification level. By establishing minimum 
requirements for these optional scenes and models, the FAA would be 
requiring the sponsor of each FSTD to meet at least the minimum 
content, and the device may be eligible for additional training credits 
for pilots.
    The visual scenes and airport models currently available in any FFS 
that would be classified as Class II are beyond the number of visual 
scenes or airport models required for qualification and are likely to 
already meet the requirements being proposed. As previously described, 
in the event any Class II visual scene or airport model is found by the 
sponsor to be deficient in some way, the sponsor could remove that 
scene or model from the FFS library without jeopardizing the 
qualification status of the FFS. However, the sponsor, at his option, 
may elect to bring the deficient aspect into compliance and retain the 
availability of that scene or model. Each sponsor has a full year to 
review each FFS during normal training, checking, or testing activities 
and determine the preferred course of action. For these reasons, the 
FAA has determined that in a few cases the cost for complying with this 
proposal would be minimal and in many cases there would be no cost to 
the sponsor.

G. New Level 7 Helicopter FSTD Requirements

    The FAA is proposing a Level 7 Helicopter FTD QPS. There are 
currently no Level 7 helicopter FTDs. The standards proposed for this 
device would insure the quality of simulation necessary for the 
training and evaluation of flight crewmembers. The Level 7 FTD QPS 
would contain specific requirements for visual and motion systems. For 
example, the device would have to provide a visual system with a field 
of view of 150[deg] x 40[deg] for both pilots simultaneously and a 
motion cueing system that may consist of a platform motion system, a 
seat shaker system, or a strategically located bass speaker of 
sufficient response to provide an indication of rotor vibration and 
vibration changes with changes in RPM or collective input. The Level 7 
device would expand the training capability for helicopter students. 
Because the Level 7 FTD is a new voluntary training option and would 
not be required for compliance with any training, testing or checking 
requirements, the proposal would not impose any additional cost on 
sponsors or manufacturers.

H. Quality Management Systems

    The October 30, 2006, Final Rule established a Quality Management 
System (QMS) for FSTDs. The QMS is divided into two separate 
categories--a mandatory program and a voluntary program. This proposal 
would remove the details regarding the voluntary program from Appendix 
E. The proposal also clarifies the obligation of sponsors to be 
consistent in their conduct of internal assessments and clarifies the 
potential for increase in internal audit intervals.
    Under the proposal, the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) 
would conduct continuing qualification evaluations of each FSTD every 
12 months unless the NSPM becomes aware of discrepancies or performance 
problems with the device that warrants more frequent evaluations. The 
continuing qualification evaluations frequency could be extended beyond 
the 12-month interval if: (1) The sponsor

[[Page 59605]]

implements a voluntary QMS program; and (2) the NSPM determines that 
the administration of the QMS program and the FSTD performance 
justifies less frequent evaluations. However, in no case would the 
frequency of continuing qualification evaluations exceed 36 months.

I. New Information on Operation and Testing Requirements for FSTDs

    The QPS material attached to this proposed rule adds 11 paragraphs 
of information to better explain the operation and testing requirements 
for FSTDs. The paragraphs provide information on the use of alternative 
data sources, alternative engines data, alternative avionics data, and 
engineering simulators to provide validation data. There are also 
information paragraphs on motion systems, sound systems, simulator 
qualifications for new or derivative airplanes, validation test 
tolerances, validation data roadmap, transport delay testing, and 
validation test data presentation.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Privacy Impact Statement for Proposed 14 CFR Part 60, Appendices A 
Through F

Legal Requirements

    Section 522 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 
instructs DOT to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of proposed 
rules that will affect the privacy of individuals. The PIA should 
identify potential threats relating to the collection, handling, use, 
sharing and security of the data, the measures identified to mitigate 
these threats, and the rationale for the final decisions made for the 
rulemaking as a result of conducting the PIA.

Definitions

    Sponsor means a certificate holder who seeks or maintains FSTD 
qualification and is responsible for the prescribed actions as 
prescribed in this part and the QPS for the appropriate FSTD and 
qualification level.
    Certificate holder means a person issued a certificate under parts 
119, 141, or 142 of this chapter or a person holding an approved course 
of training for flight engineers in accordance with part 63 of this 
chapter.
    Individual means a living human being, specifically including a 
citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence.
    Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is any information that 
permits the identity of an individual to whom the information applies 
to be reasonably inferred by either direct or indirect means, singly or 
in combination with other data. Examples of PII include but are not 
limited to physical and online contact information, Social Security 
number or driver's license number.
    Privacy Impact Assessment is an analysis of how a rulemaking would 
impact the way information is handled in order to ensure data handling 
conforms to applicable legal, regulatory, and policy requirements 
regarding privacy, determine the risks and effects the rulemaking will 
have on collecting, maintaining and sharing PII, and examine and 
evaluate protections and alternative processes for handling information 
to mitigate potential privacy risks.
Requirements for the Submission and Retention of PII as Part of 
Compliance With Proposed 14 CFR part 60, Flight Simulation Training 
Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use
    The FAA proposes to amend the QPS requirements for FSTDs. 
Compliance with the QPS requirements is the responsibility of the FSTD 
sponsor. There are approximately 60 FSTD sponsors.
    The proposed rule does not require sponsors to submit PII to the 
FAA or to maintain PII in their own records. However, the FAA 
recognizes that certain PII may be contained in a sponsor's records, 
including information about individuals who have used a particular 
FSTD. This information may include the person's name, employer, duty 
position, and type ratings. The FAA may request a sponsor to disclose 
this PII for investigation, compliance, or enforcement purposes. For 
example, the FAA may request the sponsor to provide the names of all 
individuals trained on a specific device if the FAA discovered that the 
device was not adequately simulating the aircraft and determined that 
those individuals needed to be retrained or reevaluated.
    The FAA protects PII in accordance with ``Privacy Act Notice DOT/
FAA 847--Aviation Records on Individuals (formerly General Air 
Transportation Records on Individuals).'' The Privacy Act Notice is 
available at https://cio.ost.dot.gov/DOT/OST/Documents/files/
records.html.
    The FAA did not conduct a PIA for this rulemaking because there are 
no new requirements for PII as part of these QPS amendments. In August 
2004, the FAA released a PIA for airmen certification records. The PIA 
addresses the methodology the agency uses to collect, store, 
distribute, and protect PII for certificated airmen, including pilots. 
The PIA is available at https://www.dot.gov/pia/faa_rms.htm. This PIA 
would apply to any PII the FAA may receive from a sponsor in the course 
of exercising its oversight authority.
    For more information or for comments and concerns on our privacy 
practices, please contact our Privacy Officer, Carla Mauney at 
carla.mauney@faa.gov, or by phone at (202) 267-9895.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    Information collection requirements associated with this NPRM have 
been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0680.
International Compatibility
    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
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.
Economic Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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

[[Page 59606]]

for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed 
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    The FAA proposes to codify existing practice by requiring all 
existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for 
qualification to meet specified requirements. The proposal also 
reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides 
additional information on validation tests, established parameters for 
tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data 
sources. The proposed changes would ensure that the training and 
testing environment is accurate and realistic, would codify existing 
practice, and would provide greater harmonization with the 
international standards document for simulation. None of these proposed 
technical requirements would apply to simulators qualified before May 
30, 2008, except for the proposal to codify existing practice regarding 
certain visual scene requirements. The overall impact of this proposal 
would result in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and 
sponsors.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA proposes to codify existing practice by requiring all 
existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for 
qualification to meet specified requirements. The proposal also 
reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides 
additional information on validation tests, established parameters for 
tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data 
sources. The proposed changes would ensure that the training and 
testing environment is accurate and more realistic, would codify 
existing practice, and would provide greater harmonization with the 
international standards document for simulation. None of these proposed 
technical requirements would apply to simulators qualified before May 
30, 2008, except for the proposal to codify existing practice regarding 
certain visual scene requirements. The overall impact of this proposal 
would result in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and 
sponsors. Therefore the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.
International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. 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 proposed rule and has determined that it would 
impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus 
has a neutral trade impact.
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 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) 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 $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not 
contain such a mandate.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this notice of proposed rulemaking under the 
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 
determined that this proposal will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this 
proposed rule will not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
    FAA Order 1050.1E 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 proposed rule action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use
    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

[[Page 59607]]

Additional Information
Comments Invited
    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov);
    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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60

    Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to further amend the final rule amending part 
60 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published at 71 
FR 63392 on October 30, 2006, as follows:

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

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

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

    2. Part 60, published at 71 FR 63392 on October 30, 2006 is amended 
by revising appendices A-F to read as follows:

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

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

Begin Information

    This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane Full Flight 
Simulator (FFS) evaluation and qualification. The Flight Standards 
Service, National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM), is responsible 
for the development, application, and implementation of the 
standards contained within this appendix. The procedures and 
criteria specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a 
person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane FFS 
evaluations.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2)
3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3)
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4)
5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5)
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.7)
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.  60.9)
8. FSTD Use (Sec.  60.11)
9. FSTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec.  60.13)
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification 
of the FSTD (Sec.  60.14)
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15)
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FSTD (Sec.  
60.16)
13. Previously Qualified FSTDs (Sec.  60.17)
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance 
Requirements (Sec.  60.19)
15. Logging FSTD Discrepancies (Sec.  60.20)
16. Interim Qualification of FSTDs for New Airplane Types or Models 
(Sec.  60.21)
17. Modifications to FSTDs (Sec.  60.23)
18. Operations with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative 
Components (Sec.  60.25)
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration 
of Qualification (Sec.  60.27)
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.29)
21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec.  60.31)
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, 
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  60.33)
23. Specific Full Flight Simulator Compliance Requirements (Sec.  
60.35)
24. [Reserved]
25. FSTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) (Sec.  60.37)
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator 
Requirements
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--Full Flight Simulator 
Objective Tests
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective 
Evaluation
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification 
Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to 
Airplane Flight Simulators

End Information

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

1. Introduction

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

Begin Information

    a. This appendix contains background information as well as 
regulatory and informative material as described later in this 
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required 
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided 
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS 
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the 
part 60 rule

[[Page 59608]]

language. These details are regulatory, but are found only in this 
appendix. The Information sections contain material that is advisory 
in nature, and designed to give the user general information about 
the regulation.
    b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should 
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program 
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, 
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: phone, 
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the 
NSP office is: 9-aso-avr-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web Site 
address is: https://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/
aircraft_aviation/nsp/. On this Web Site you will find an NSP 
personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each 
NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, 
advisory circulars, a description of the qualification process, NSP 
policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section. Also linked from this site 
are additional information sources, handbook bulletins, frequently 
asked questions, a listing and text of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA 
links.
    c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all 
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or 
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must 
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The 
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum 
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
    d. Related Reading References.
    (1) 14 CFR part 60.
    (2) 14 CFR part 61.
    (3) 14 CFR part 63.
    (4) 14 CFR part 119.
    (5) 14 CFR part 121.
    (6) 14 CFR part 125.
    (7) 14 CFR part 135.
    (8) 14 CFR part 141.
    (9) 14 CFR part 142.
    (10) Advisory Circular (AC) 120-28C, Criteria for Approval of 
Category III Landing Weather Minima.
    (11) AC 120-29, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category 
II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
    (12) AC 120-35B, Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented 
Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line 
Operational Evaluation.
    (13) AC 120-41, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne 
Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
    (14) AC 120-57A, Surface Movement Guidance and Control System 
(SMGS).
    (15) AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
    (16) AC 150/5340-1G, Standards for Airport Markings.
    (17) AC 150/5340-4C, Installation Details for Runway Centerline 
Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
    (18) AC 150/5340-19, Taxiway Centerline Lighting System.
    (19) AC 150/5340-24, Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System.
    (20) AC 150/5345-28D, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) 
Systems.
    (21) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight 
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
    (22) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of 
Transport Category Airplanes.
    (23) AC 23-8A, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification 
of Part 23 Airplanes.
    (24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
    (25) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as 
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, 
London, UK.
    (26) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards 
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial 
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
    (27) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An 
electronic version of the AIM is on the Internet at https://
www.faa.gov/atpubs.

End Information

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

2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2)

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

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.1, Applicability, or to Sec.  60.2, Applicability of 
sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in 
certain unauthorized activities.

End Information

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

3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3)

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

Begin Information

    See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and 
abbreviations from part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate 
appendices of part 60.

End Information

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

4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4)

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

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.

End Information

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

5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5)

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

Begin Information

    See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and 
informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.

End Information

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

6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.7)

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

Begin Information

    a. The intent of the language in Sec.  60.7