This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

21449 

Vol. 81, No. 70 

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 73 

[NRC–2015–0179] 

RIN 3150–AJ64 

Cyber Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final regulatory basis; 

availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is making available 

a final regulatory basis document to 

support a rulemaking that would amend 

its regulations by adopting new cyber 

security requirements for certain 

nuclear fuel cycle facility (FCF) 

licensees in order to address safety, 

security, and safeguards consequences 

of concern. The NRC is not seeking 

public comments on this document. 

There will be an opportunity for formal 

public comment on the proposed rule 

when it is published in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: The final regulatory basis is 

publicly available April 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0179 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this document. You may 

obtain publicly-available information 

related to this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0179. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Bartlett, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–7154; email Matthew.Bartlett@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In a September 4, 2015, Federal 

Register document (80 FR 53478), the 

NRC solicited comment from members 

of the public on a draft regulatory basis 

addressing the need for a rulemaking to 

implement cyber security for FCFs. The 

public comment period ended on 

October 5, 2015. The NRC received a 

total of 9 comment submissions from 

nongovernment organizations and 

industry. The NRC staff reviewed and 

considered the comments in finalizing 

the regulatory basis. The final regulatory 

basis is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15355A466 or on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0179. 

II. Publicly-Available Documents 

As the NRC continues its ongoing 

proposed rulemaking effort to 

implement cyber security requirements 

for FCFs in part 73 of title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, the NRC is 

making documents publicly available on 

the Federal rulemaking Web site, 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0179. By making these 

documents publicly available, the NRC 

seeks to inform stakeholders of the 

current status of the NRC’s rulemaking 

development activities and to provide 

preparatory material for future public 

meetings. 

The NRC may post additional 

materials relevant to this rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0179. Please take the 

following actions if you wish to receive 

alerts when changes or additions occur 

in a docket folder: (1) Navigate to the 

docket folder (NRC–2015–0179); (2) 

click the ‘‘Email Alert’’ link; and (3) 

enter your email address and select how 

frequently you would like to receive 

emails (daily, weekly, or monthly). 

III. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010, (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, 

well-organized manner that also follows 

other best practices appropriate to the 

subject or field and the intended 

audience. Although regulations are 

exempt under the Act, the NRC is 

applying the same principles to its 

rulemaking documents. Therefore, the 

NRC has written this document to be 

consistent with the Plain Writing Act. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of April, 2016. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Shana R. Helton, 

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Fuel Cycle 

Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental 

Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08324 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–1846; Amdt. Nos. 

61–136, 141–18] 

RIN 2120–AK71 

Aviation Training Device Credit for 

Pilot Certification 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves 

burdens on pilots seeking to obtain 

aeronautical experience, training, and 

certification by increasing the allowed 

use of aviation training devices. These 

actions are necessary to bring the 

regulations in line with the current 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 If a course of training is approved under the 

minimum requirements as prescribed in part 141, 

appendix C, for the instrument rating (35 hours of 

training required), 25% in a BATD would equate to 

8.75 hours and 40% in an AATD would equate to 

14 hours. 

2Section 61.4(c) states that the ‘‘Administrator 

may approve a device other than a flight simulator 

or flight training device for specific purposes.’’ 3 In a 2007 NPRM, the FAA proposed to limit the 

time in a personal computer-based aviation training 

device that could be credited toward the instrument 

rating. Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification NPRM, 72 FR 5806 (Feb. 7, 2007). 

Three commenters recommended that the FAA use 

the terms ‘‘basic aviation training device’’ (BATD) 

and ‘‘advanced aviation training device’’ (AATD). 

Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification Final Rule, 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 

2009) (‘‘2009 Final Rule’’). In response to the 

commenters, the FAA changed the regulatory text 

in the final rule to ‘‘aviation training device,’’ 

noting BATDs and AATDs ‘‘as being aviation 

training devices (ATD) are defined’’ in an advisory 

circular. 

capabilities of aviation training devices 

and the needs and activities of the 

general aviation training community 

and pilots. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification 

and Training Branch, Flight Standards 

Service, AFS–810, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 898 Airport Park Road, 

Suite 204, Glen Burnie, MD 21061; 

telephone: (410) 590–5364 x235 email 

marcel.bernard@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

This rule finalizes the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding 

the use of aviation training devices for 

pilot certification. 80 FR 34338 (Jun. 16, 

2015). The NPRM proposed to increase 

the maximum time that may be credited 

in an aviation training device (ATD) 

toward the aeronautical experience 

requirements for an instrument rating 

under § 61.65(i). The NPRM proposed to 

permit a person to credit a maximum of 

20 hours of aeronautical experience 

acquired in an approved ATD toward 

the requirements for an instrument 

rating. By letter of authorization (LOA), 

devices that qualify as advanced 

aviation training devices (AATDs) were 

proposed to be authorized for up to 20 

hours of experience to meet the 

instrument time requirements. Devices 

that qualify as basic aviation training 

devices (BATDs) were proposed to be 

authorized, by LOA, for a maximum of 

10 hours of experience to meet the 

instrument time requirements. 

Based on the comments received to 

the NPRM, the FAA is revising § 61.65 

to include a specified allowance of 10 

hours for BATDs and 20 hours for 

AATDs in part 61 (combined use not to 

exceed 20 hours) for the instrument 

rating. 

The NPRM also addressed the use of 

ATDs in approved instrument rating 

courses. The NPRM proposed to amend 

appendix C to part 141 to increase the 

limit on the amount of training hours 

that may be accomplished in an ATD in 

an approved course for an instrument 

rating. The FAA proposed to allow 

ATDs to be used for no more than 40% 

of the total flight training hour 

requirements in an approved instrument 

rating course. 

Based on the comments received to 

the NPRM, the FAA is revising 

appendix C to part 141 to include a 

specified allowance of 25% of creditable 

time in BATDs 1 and 40% of creditable 

time for AATDs under part 141 (not to 

exceed 40% total time) for the 

instrument rating. 

Currently, § 61.65(i) requires a pilot 

who is logging instrument time in an 

ATD to wear a view-limiting device. 

The NPRM proposed to revise 

§ 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the 

requirement that pilots accomplishing 

instrument time in an ATD wear a viewlimiting device. The FAA is finalizing 

this proposal without change. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules; 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and setting 

minimum standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedures necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which 

requires the Administrator to prescribe 

regulations for the issuance of airman 

certificates when the Administrator 

finds, after investigation, that an 

individual is qualified for, and 

physically able to perform the duties 

related to, the position authorized by 

the certificate. 

III. Background 

Since the 1970s, the FAA has 

gradually expanded the permitted use of 

flight simulation for training—first 

permitting simulation to be used in air 

carrier training programs and eventually 

permitting pilots to credit time in 

devices toward the aeronautical 

experience requirements for airman 

certification and recency. Currently, 

title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs 

the qualification of flight simulation 

training devices (FSTDs), which include 

full flight simulators (FFSs) level A 

through D and flight training devices 

(FTDs) levels 4 through 7. The FAA has, 

however, approved other devices, 

including ATDs, for use in pilot 

certification training, under the 

authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c).2

For over 30 years, the FAA has issued 

LOAs to manufacturers of ground 

trainers, personal computer-based 

aviation training devices (PCATD), 

FTDs (levels 1 through 3), BATDs, and 

AATDs. These LOAs were based on 

guidance provided in advisory circulars 

(ACs) that set forth the qualifications 

and capabilities for the devices. Prior to 

2008, most LOAs were issued under the 

guidance provided in AC 61–126, 

Qualification and Approval of Personal 

Computer-Based Aviation Training 

Devices, and AC 120–45, Airplane 

Flight Training Device Qualification. 

Starting in July 2008, the FAA approved 

devices in accordance with AC 61–136, 

FAA Approval of Basic Aviation 

Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced 

Aviation Training Devices (AATD). 

More recently, on December 3, 2014, the 

FAA published a revision to AC 61– 

136A, Approval of Aviation Training 

Devices and Their Use for Training and 

Experience. 

In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule 

that for the first time introduced the 

term ‘‘aviation training device’’ into the 

regulations and placed express limits on 

the amount of instrument time in an 

ATD that could be credited toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for an instrument rating.3

Since the 2009 final rule, § 61.65(i) 

has provided that no more than 10 

hours of instrument time received in an 

ATD may be credited toward the 

instrument time requirements of that 

section. In addition, appendix C to part 

141 permits an ATD to be used for no 

more than 10% of the total flight 

training hour requirements of an 

approved course for an instrument 

rating. 

Prior to the 2009 final rule, the FAA 

had issued hundreds of LOAs to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21451 

4 ‘‘Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA 

Approved Training Devices,’’ January 2, 2014. 

5Under § 61.65, a person who applies for an 

instrument rating must have completed 40 hours of 

actual or simulated instrument time of which 15 

hours must have been with an authorized instructor 

who holds the appropriate instrument rating. 

6Under appendix C, each approved course for an 

instrument rating must include 35 hours of 

instrument training for an initial instrument rating 

or 15 hours of instrument training for an additional 

instrument rating. 

7 79 FR 71634, Dec. 3, 2014, withdrawn at 80 FR 

2001, Jan. 15, 2015 (RIN 2120–AK62). 8The direct final rule and the comments received 

thereto may be found in FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0987 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

manufacturers of devices that permitted 

some ATDs (as well as ground trainers, 

and FTDs (levels 1 through 3)) to be 

used to a greater extent than was 

ultimately set forth in the regulations. 

The FAA continued to issue LOAs for 

AATDs in excess of the express 

limitations in the regulations after the 

publication of the 2009 final rule. 

On January 2, 2014, the FAA 

published a notice of policy requiring 

manufacturers of ATDs to obtain new 

LOAs reflecting the appropriate 

regulatory allowances for ATD use. 79 

FR 20.4 The notice of policy stated the 

FAA’s conclusion that it could not use 

LOAs to exceed express limitations that 

had been placed in the regulations 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking. The FAA noted that, since 

August 2013, LOAs issued for new 

devices reflect current regulatory 

requirements. However, manufacturers 

and operators who held LOAs issued 

prior to August 2013 acted in reliance 

on FAA statements that were 

inconsistent with the regulations. 

Therefore, the FAA granted a limited 

exemption from the requirement in the 

regulations to provide manufacturers, 

operators, and pilots currently training 

for an instrument rating time to adjust 

to the reduction in creditable hours. 

This short-term exemption was 

intended to provide an interim period to 

transition the LOAs for all previously 

approved devices in accordance with 

the new policy. The FAA found the 

exemption to be in the public interest in 

order to prevent undue harm caused by 

reasonable reliance on the LOAs. 

As stated in the notice of policy, this 

short term exemption expired on 

January 1, 2015. The FAA explained 

that after that date, no applicant training 

for an instrument rating under part 61 

may use more than 10 hours of 

instrument time in an ATD toward the 

minimum aeronautical experience 

requirements required to take the 

practical test for an instrument rating.5

In addition, no instrument rating course 

approved under appendix C to part 141 

may credit more than 10% of training in 

ATDs toward the total flight training 

hour requirements of the course (unless 

that program has been approved in 

accordance with § 141.55(d) or (e)).6

To address the discrepancy between 

the level of ATD credit allowed 

historically by LOA and the lower 

allowances placed in the regulations, 

the FAA published a direct final rule 

that would have amended the 

regulations governing the use of ATDs.7

The direct final rule would have 

increased the use of these devices for 

instrument training requirements above 

the levels established in the 2009 final 

rule. In developing this direct final rule, 

the FAA noted that ATD development 

has advanced to an impressive level of 

capability. Many ATDs can simulate 

weather conditions with variable winds, 

variable ceilings and visibility, icing, 

turbulence, high definition (HD) visuals, 

hundreds of different equipment failure 

scenarios, navigation specific to current 

charts and topography, specific 

navigation and communication 

equipment use, variable ‘‘aircraft 

specific’’ performance, and more. The 

visual and motion component of some 

of these devices permit maneuvers that 

require outside visual references in an 

aircraft to be successfully taught in an 

AATD. Many of these simulation 

capabilities were not possible in 

previously approved devices (such as 

PCATDs). 

In the direct final rule, the FAA stated 

its belief that permitting pilots to log 

increased time in ATDs would 

encourage pilots to practice maneuvers 

until they are performed to an 

acceptable level of proficiency. In an 

ATD, a pilot can replay the training 

scenario, identify any improper action, 

practice abnormal/emergency 

procedures, and determine corrective 

actions without undue hazard or risk to 

persons or property. In this fashion, a 

pilot can continue to practice tasks and 

maneuvers in a safe, effective, and cost 

efficient means of maintaining 

proficiency. 

IV. The Direct Final Rule 

As described in the previous section, 

to address the discrepancy between 

FAA regulations and prior policy, on 

December 3, 2014, the FAA published a 

direct final rule that would have 

increased the allowed use of ATDs. The 

FAA received 20 comments to the direct 

final rule.8

Credit for aeronautical experience 

requirements for an instrument rating: 

The direct final rule would have 

increased the maximum time that may 

be credited in an ATD toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for an instrument rating under 

§ 61.65(i). The direct final rule would 

have permitted a person to credit a 

maximum of 20 hours of aeronautical 

experience acquired in an approved 

ATD toward the requirements for an 

instrument rating. Devices that qualify 

as AATDs would have been authorized 

for up to 20 hours of experience to meet 

the instrument time requirements. 

Devices that qualify as BATDs would 

have been authorized for a maximum of 

10 hours of experience to meet the 

instrument time requirements. 

Approved instrument rating courses: 

The direct final rule also would have 

amended appendix C to part 141 to 

increase the limit on the amount of 

training hours that may be 

accomplished in an ATD in an approved 

course for an instrument rating. An ATD 

would have been permitted to be used 

for no more than 40% of the total flight 

training hour requirements in an 

approved instrument rating course. 

Comments received: The FAA 

received 20 comments regarding these 

provisions. Eighteen comments 

supported the provisions. However, two 

commenters raised concerns. As those 

comments were adverse to the direct 

final rule, the FAA was required to 

withdraw the direct final rule, 80 FR 

2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 14 CFR 11.13. The 

comments received to the direct final 

rule and FAA’s responses were 

discussed in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking published June 16, 2015. 80 

FR 34338. 

View-limiting devices: Under 

§ 61.51(g), a person may log instrument 

time only for that flight time when the 

person operates an aircraft solely by 

reference to the instruments under 

actual or simulated conditions. When 

instrument time is logged in an aircraft, 

a pilot wears a view-limiting device to 

simulate instrument conditions and 

ensure that he or she is flying without 

utilizing outside visual references. 

Currently, § 61.65(i) requires a pilot who 

is logging instrument time in an ATD to 

wear a view-limiting device. The direct 

final rule would have revised 

§ 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the 

requirement that pilots accomplishing 

instrument time in an ATD wear a viewlimiting device. 

The purpose of a view-limiting device 

is to prevent a pilot (while training in 

an aircraft during flight) from having 

outside visual references that would 

naturally be present otherwise. These 

references are not available in a training 

device and a pilot has no opportunity to 

look outside for any useful visual 

references pertaining to the simulation. 

The FAA recognizes that the majority of 

these devices have a simulated visual 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

9AC 61–136A Appendix 4, Training Content and 

Logging Provisions references limitations for 

logging instrument time. 

10As required under § 61.51(g)(4), to log 

instrument time in an ATD for the purpose of a 

certificate or rating, an authorized instructor must 

be present. 

display that can be configured to be 

unavailable or represent ‘‘limited 

visibility’’ conditions that preclude any 

need for a view-limiting device to be 

worn by the student. This lack of visual 

references requires the pilot to give his 

or her full attention to the flight 

instruments which is the goal of any 

instrument training or experience. The 

FAA believes that using a training 

device can be useful because it trains 

the pilot to focus on, appropriately scan 

and interpret the flight instruments. 

Since these devices incorporate a visual 

system that can be configured to the 

desired visibility level, use of a viewlimiting device would have no longer 

been required by the direct final rule. 

When the FAA introduced 

§ 61.65(i)(4) requiring view-limiting 

devices in the 2009 final rule, the 

preamble was silent as to why a viewlimiting device was necessary. 74 FR 

42500, 42523. Based on comments from 

industry, the FAA has determined that 

due to the sophistication of the flight 

visual representation for ATDs and the 

capability of presenting various weather 

conditions appropriate to the training 

scenario, a view-limiting device is 

unnecessary. Because persons operating 

an ATD can simulate both instrument 

and visual conditions, FAA LOAs 

specifically reference § 61.51 that 

stipulates a pilot can log instrument 

time only when operating the aircraft 

solely by reference to the instruments in 

actual or simulated instrument flight 

conditions.9

Comments received: The FAA 

received one comment in response to 

this provision in the direct final rule. 

The comment received to the direct 

final rule and FAA’s response were 

discussed in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking published June 16, 2015. 80 

FR 34338. 

V. The Proposed Rule 

After consideration of the comments 

received to the direct final rule, on June 

16, 2015, the FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (80 FR 34338) 

proposing the following changes to 14 

CFR parts 61 and 141. These changes 

were the same as in the direct final rule, 

79 FR 71634, (Dec. 3, 2014), withdrawn 

at 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 

The FAA received a total of 60 

comments to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, 50 from individuals; five 

from flight schools; three from 

organizations representing pilots and 

flight instructors, including the Society 

of Aviation and Flight Educators 

(SAFE), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA), and the National 

Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI); 

one from an anonymous commenter 

purporting to represent Garmin 

International; and one from ATD 

manufacturer Redbird Flight 

Simulations. The proposed provisions, 

the comments received, and FAA’s 

responses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

A. Credit for the Aeronautical 

Experience Requirements for an 

Instrument Rating and Approved 

Instrument Rating Courses 

The FAA proposed to increase the 

maximum time that may be credited in 

an ATD toward the instrument time 

requirements for an instrument rating 

under § 61.65(i). A person would be 

permitted to credit a maximum of 20 

hours of instrument time in an approved 

ATD toward the requirements for an 

instrument rating.10 Devices that qualify 

as AATDs would be authorized for up 

to 20 hours of instrument time. Devices 

that qualify as BATDs would be 

authorized for a maximum of 10 hours 

of instrument time. In light of this 

difference, pilots must—as required by 

current regulations—include in their 

logbooks the type and identification of 

any ATD that is used to accomplish 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a certificate, rating, or recent flight 

experience. 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). The 

FAA is retaining the existing limit of 20 

hours of combined time in FFSs, FTDs, 

and ATDs that may be credited towards 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements for an instrument rating. 

The FAA also proposed to amend 

appendix C to part 141 to increase the 

limit on the amount of training hours 

that may be accomplished in an ATD in 

an approved course for an instrument 

rating. An ATD could be used for no 

more than 40% of the total flight 

training hour requirements in an 

instrument rating course. The proposed 

rule did not change the current 

provisions in appendix C which limit 

credit for training in FFSs, FTDs, and 

ATDs, that if used in combination, 

cannot exceed 50% of the total flight 

training hour requirements of an 

instrument rating course. 

In addition, the FAA proposed to 

amend § 141.41 to clarify the existing 

qualification and approval requirement 

for FSTDs and to add the qualification 

and approval of ATDs by the FAA, 

which is currently conducted pursuant 

to § 61.4(c). 

1. Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Provisions 

The FAA received 57 comments in 

support of these proposed provisions, 

with 47 from individuals and 10 from 

organizations. Of the 57 comments 

received in support of the proposed 

rule, five recommended changes to the 

proposed regulations. 

Nineteen individual commenters 

provided general support for the 

proposed rule. Nine commenters who 

identified themselves as pilots who had 

used ATDs for their own training 

provided support for the rule. They 

emphasized the value of being able to 

have a flight instructor pause the 

training, discuss the scenario, provide 

instant feedback and additional 

instruction, and then continue the 

training session. These individuals also 

believed that their training was 

enhanced by the ability to focus on the 

specific training tasks and ensure 

accurate, appropriate learning of the 

lesson. Commenters also noted that in 

an ATD instructors can focus solely on 

teaching rather than dividing their focus 

between teaching important instrument 

skills and general aircraft operations. 

Commenters also emphasized the 

value of being presented with training 

scenarios that cannot be accomplished 

safely in the aircraft. Commenters cited 

emergency procedures, flight into 

thunderstorms, icing, and turbulent 

conditions as primary examples of 

conditions that can be simulated safely 

in ATDs. 

SAFE, NAFI, and Redbird Flight 

Simulations also noted the ability of 

current ATDs to simulate a variety of 

aircraft types and configurations, as well 

as to simulate various conditions inside 

and outside the aircraft. 

A number of individual commenters 

also noted the value, both financial and 

time saving, of accomplishing more 

repetitions in the same amount of time 

when using an ATD as opposed to using 

an aircraft. Two individual commenters 

estimated that time in an approved 

simulator with an instructor costs about 

$100 per hour, while dual time in an 

instrument flight rules-certified aircraft 

is $200 per hour or more. These 

commenters asserted that adding an 

extra 10 hours of simulator time cuts 

$1,000 from the overall training cost. 

NAFI also noted that because the 

training is independent of weather and 

air traffic control conditions, a training 

syllabus can be followed more closely 

with use of the ATDs and the student 

can avoid unplanned, non-productive 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21453 

11Stephen Cunningham, Docket No. FAA–2015– 

1846–0034. Anonymous, Docket No. FAA–2015– 

1846–0038. 

12Carretta, Thomas R., and Dunlap, Ronald D. 

‘‘Transfer of Training Effectiveness in Flight 

Simulation: 1986–1997.’’ United States Air Force 

Research Laboratory, 1998. http://www.dtic.mil/gettr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA362818. 

13Anonymous, Docket No. FAA–2015–1846– 

0035. 

14 80 FR 34338 at 34342. 

15 Kearns, S. (2007). ‘‘The Effectiveness of Guided 

Mental Practice in a Computer-Based Single Pilot 

Resource Management (SRM) Training,’’ Ph.D. 

Dissertation, Capella University). 

16Anonymous, Docket No. FAA–2015–1846– 

0035. 

time delays when attempting to practice 

a procedure. 

Thirteen commenters who identified 

themselves as flight instructors 

supported the rule. They echoed the 

sentiments of those commenters who 

identified themselves as pilots who had 

used ATDs for their own training. 

Commenters discussed the belief that 

ATDs save lives, reduce training time 

and cost, reduce atmospheric and noise 

pollution, and produce safer pilots. 

They particularly noted the ability to 

train scenarios that would not be trained 

using an aircraft—thunderstorms, icing, 

etc. They emphasized the value of 

scenario-based training, followed 

closely by training in an aircraft. These 

commenters noted the importance of 

being able to train students regarding 

emergency procedures using meaningful 

repetition, until the commenters 

confirm the student’s mastery of those 

skills. AOPA supported this view, 

stating that simulator training for an 

instrument rating allows instructors to 

provide a safer, more effective training 

experience. Redbird Flight Simulations 

also supported this view, stating that the 

ATD is the ideal place to learn, ask 

questions and practice, and the aircraft 

is the place where the student 

demonstrates what he or she has learned 

and can focus on gaining real-world 

flying experience with the basic 

fundamental instrument skills already 

engrained. 

A few commenters noted that 

students whom they had trained 

initially in ATDs found the experience 

so useful that they returned for 

recurrent training in those same ATDs. 

One commenter noted FAA’s inferred 

endorsement of the use of AATDs in 

Instrument Practical Test Standard 

(FAA–S–8081–4E, Chg 5) by the 

inclusion of tasks for an instrument 

proficiency check which may be 

credited using an AATD. 

Five commenters commenting on 

behalf of flight schools also concurred 

with these comments. These 

commenters discussed the ability for 

pilots to practice situations and 

procedures that would not ‘‘normally’’ 

be possible to accomplish safely in an 

aircraft, including various weather 

conditions and simulated instrument 

failures. Commenters focused on the 

unique training that ATDs allow 

instructors to provide. As two 

commenters noted, 

Aircraft are not classrooms and as such 

they are poor environments for learning. The 

AATDs allow for students experiencing 

difficult learning situations the opportunity 

to repeat the lesson easily, safely and as 

frequently as needed. Importantly, the 

instructor is able to focus entirely on 

teaching rather than splitting his/her 

attention on traffic, ATC instructions and 

safe aircraft operation.11

These commenters emphasized that 

ATDs are only one component of the 

training curriculum and process, and 

that all learning in an ATD would be 

accompanied by training in the aircraft. 

They also noted that ATDs and aircraft 

do not replace each other. NAFI agreed, 

pointing out that a significant portion of 

training would still be required in an 

aircraft under the proposed regulations. 

Commenters, including SAFE and 

several individuals, noted the use of 

simulators by other industries, 

including the United States military and 

air carriers. SAFE specifically cited a 

1998 United States Air Force study 

regarding the transfer of training 

effectiveness.12

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenters who support increased 

training time allowances in ATDs, 

including the statements discussing the 

increased dynamic training capability of 

these devices, cost savings, time 

savings, effective use of scenario-based 

training, and recent technical 

advancements that enhance the 

capabilities of ATDs. With over 30 years 

of experience evaluating, approving, 

and providing oversight for FSTDs and 

over 10 years approving ATDs, the FAA 

recognizes their evolving capabilities, 

safety benefits, and improved design 

justifying their increased use and credit 

for minimum pilot experience 

requirements. 

One commenter noted the safety 

benefit of ATDs related to 

decommissioning of very high 

frequency omni-directional radio range 

(VORs), non-directional beacons 

(NDBs), the scarcity of localizer backcourses, and scarcity of outer markers. 

The commenter noted that the practical 

test standards still require the 

demonstration of a VOR approach for an 

instrument candidate. As the 

commenter explained: 

Thus, instrument instructors must use a 

more limited set of VORs to conduct VOR 

instrument approach training, resulting in 

greater congestion around VORs during 

training maneuvers. Numerous FAA 

publications suggest avoiding concentrations 

around VORS, such as FAA–P–8740–51, 

‘How to Avoid a Midair Collision.’ When one 

considers finding VOR approaches located on 

the airport (without a final approach fix) and 

those conducted off airport (those with a 

final approach fix), the amount of time an 

instructor must spend exposed to the risk of 

a midair collision is quite large. The risk of 

a midair collision is non-existent in an 

ATD.13

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenter that ATDs provide for 

unlimited choices when practicing 

electronic navigation, including 

instrument approaches, and the safety 

advantages afforded in these training 

devices. Traffic conflicts and geographic 

location are not a limitation when 

training in an FSTD or ATD. ATDs come 

with a database affording significant 

navigational choices. Advantages 

include executing navigation or 

instrument approach procedures to an 

airport that a pilot may not have 

experienced or executed in flight before. 

2. Comments Providing Institutional 

Research Related to the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

In the NPRM, the FAA specifically 

sought ‘‘. . . comment regarding any 

additional relevant data or institutional 

research that supports the training and 

safety advantages when using ATDs, or 

establishes that such devices do not 

enhance pilot training and flight 

safety.’’ 14

The FAA received two comments that 

specifically addressed this request. 

One individual commenter cited an 

unpublished dissertation 15 that the 

commenter believed supported the use 

of ATDs. The commenter stated: 

In her dissertation study, Kearns compared 

simulators far less capable then [sic] ATDs to 

a guided mental practice experimental 

technique. Though her results did not 

specifically evaluate ATDs, Kearn [sic] 

demonstrated how ATD-level simulators (and 

guided mental practice) effectively train 

skills enhancing mental workload and 

situational awareness.16

FAA Response: The FAA obtained 

and reviewed the unpublished Kearns 

dissertation. 

The study author described the study 

as follows: 

The purpose of this investigation was to 

assess the feasibility of guided mental 

practice, as an instructional strategy, 

embedded within an asynchronous 

computer-based non-technical training 

program for pilots. Two asynchronous 

computer-based single pilot resource 

management (SRM) training programs were 

developed for the study, varying only in the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

17 Kearns, at 80. 

18 Kearns, at 12. 

19 Kearns, at 63. 

20 Kearns, at 82–83. 

21Carretta, Thomas R., and Dunlap, Ronald D. 

‘‘Transfer of Training Effectiveness in Flight 

Simulation: 1986–1997.’’ United States Air Force 

Research Laboratory, 1998. http://www.dtic.mil/gettr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA362818. 22 Ibid. 

method of active practice. One version 

incorporated hands-on practice and another 

utilized a form of mental practice, termed 

guided mental practice. The term guided 

mental practice was developed to describe 

the process of mental practice which is 

facilitated by a computer-based training 

program, such as through the presentation of 

a video of a flight simulator scenario.17

The study author defined guided 

mental practice as: 

. . . practice that took place without any 

hands-on interaction yet was facilitated by a 

computer-based flight simulator scenario 

embedded within an asynchronous online 

SRM training program. Participants were 

asked to view a video of a flight simulator in 

a particular scenario and imagine themselves 

as the pilot of the flight. Guided mental 

practice differs from traditional mental 

practice, which is typically an entirely 

internal process, as an external medium 

guides the learner through the practice 

exercise.18

Three groups were formed in the 

study (a) SRM training with hands-on 

practice, (b) SRM training with mental 

practice, and (c) a control group that 

received no training. The study used a 

sample size of 12 participants per 

condition.19 All three groups of 

participants completed a high-fidelity 

flight simulator evaluation in which 

metrics assessed their situation 

awareness and mental workload, the 

two constructs targeted in the SRM 

training program. 

The study found that although no 

difference existed between the practice 

conditions, groups that completed 

training with either hands-on or mental 

practice demonstrated improved 

situation awareness over the group that 

did not receive any training as measured 

by the situation awareness global 

assessment technique (SAGAT). 

Significant findings were not found 

with either of the metrics meant to 

assess workload: The National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s 

task load index (NASA–TLX), and 

secondary task (ST) metrics.20

While this study did not directly 

address whether ATDs or other 

simulators provide benefit by increasing 

learning of piloting skills, it does appear 

to indicate that deliberate practice is 

important to pilot training, and that any 

practice, whether in a simulator or 

watching a video of a simulation and 

imagining oneself as the pilot, is more 

beneficial than no use of simulation at 

all in advance of the skill evaluation. 

While the FAA believes that this study 

may provide useful information for its 

area of interest, the study was not 

focused on the decision point the FAA 

was considering regarding whether to 

move forward with this regulatory 

change—that is, data or institutional 

research that supports the training and 

safety advantages when using ATDs, or 

establishes that such devices do not 

enhance pilot training and flight safety. 

Situational awareness is one of many 

elements to be considered in evaluating 

pilot training and safety. The study did 

not consider whether skill sets were 

better learned by use of either guided 

mental practice or hands-on use of a 

simulator as compared with training in 

an aircraft only. 

SAFE asserted that research shows 

that when properly utilized as part of a 

comprehensive training program such 

training devices actually speed up the 

learning process by allowing students to 

bypass areas of successful 

understanding and to concentrate on 

areas where more understanding and 

practice is required.21

FAA Response: The abstract of the 

study cited by SAFE reads as follows: 

The purpose of this report was to review 

recent studies regarding the effectiveness of 

flight simulators as augmentation for ‘‘handson’’ flying training. Simulation-based 

training has been proposed to reduce costs, 

extend aircraft life, maintain flying 

proficiency, and provide more effective 

training, especially in areas difficult to train 

in operational aircraft. A review of the 

literature from 1986 to 1997 identified 67 

articles, conference papers, and technical 

reports regarding simulator flying training 

and transfer. Of these, only 13 were related 

directly to transfer of training from the 

simulator to the aircraft. Studies of simulator 

effectiveness for training landing skills 

constituted a majority of the transfer studies, 

although a few examined other flying skills 

such as radial bombing accuracy and 

instrument and flight control. Results 

indicate that simulators are useful for 

training landing skills, bombing accuracy, 

and instrument and flight control. Generally, 

as the number of simulated sorties increases, 

performance improves, but this gain levels 

off after approximately 25 missions. Further, 

several studies indicate that successful 

transfer may not require high-fidelity 

simulators or whole-task training, thus 

reducing simulator development costs. 

Evaluation of this literature is difficult for 

many reasons. Typically, researchers fail to 

report sufficient detail regarding research 

methods, training characteristics, and 

simulator fidelity. In addition to these 

methodological concerns, there is a lack of 

true simulator-to-aircraft transfer studies 

involving complex pilot skills. This may be 

due to problems such as inadequate 

simulator design, cost, and availability, and 

access to simulators in operational flying 

units. Future directions in simulator transfer 

of training are discussed.22

Their literature review found that 

numerous studies conducted between 

1986 and 1997 indicated that simulators 

were found to be useful for training 

landing skills. As the number of 

simulated sorties increased, 

performance increased, but the 

performance gain appeared to level off 

after approximately 25 missions. Two 

other studies considered for the 

literature review suggest that simulators 

provide an effective means to train 

instrument procedures and flight 

control. The results suggest that in order 

to produce transfer to the aircraft it may 

be necessary to train only the critical 

components of the task rather than the 

whole task. Authors emphasized the 

limitations of the literature review, 

including a lack of information 

regarding the simulator fidelity 

characteristics, research methods, and 

training characteristics among other 

challenges. 

While the FAA found this literature 

review to provide some limited support 

for the agency’s position, the review did 

not provide significant support for this 

position. Given the lack of information 

regarding simulators used, the 

effectiveness of the skills transfer, and 

the age of the review itself, it is likely 

that the literature review cannot be used 

to directly support the FAA’s position. 

The FAA notes that FSTD and ATD 

technology has evolved significantly 

since this literature review was written 

and for that reason alone it is possible 

that studies conducted today would 

show different conclusions regarding 

the effectiveness of skill transfer, as 

simulators at all levels are more realistic 

and have greater information from 

which to provide simulation than that 

which existed 20 years ago. 

Nonetheless, the FAA agrees that the 

use of ground based training devices in 

advance of flight training in an aircraft 

speeds up the overall process of 

learning. The FAA believes that practice 

decreases the time required in an actual 

aircraft to reach a level of proficiency 

required to successfully complete a 

practical test for a pilot certificate or 

rating. The Air Force research paper 

referenced by SAFE supports this 

assertion, but does not directly address 

the current capabilities of ATDs. 

The individual commenter also 

believed that allowing increased hours 

in ATDs would increase economic 

demand for ATDs, thereby increasing 

competition and resulting in lower ATD 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21455 

23 Vasigh, B., Fleming, K., Tacker, T. (2008) 

Introduction to Air Transport Economics: From 

Theory to Applications. Burlington, VT: Ashgate). 

http://www.ashgate.com/

default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&isbn=

9781409454878&lang=cy-GB. 

24Tuccio, W.A. (2013). Aviation Approach Charts 

in an iPad World. Journal of Navigation, 66(1). 

Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/

action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=

8777261&fileId=S0373463312000409. 

25Tuccio, W.A. (2011). Heuristics to Improve 

Human Factors Performance in Aviation. Journal of 

Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 20(3). 

from http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol20/iss3/8. 

26Heuristics Merriam-Webster definition: 

Involving or serving as an aid to learning, 

discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and 

especially trial-and-error methods <heuristic 

techniques> <a heuristic assumption>; also: Of or 

relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques 

that utilize self-educating techniques (as the 

evaluation of feedback) to improve performance <a 

heuristic computer program>. 

27The 3.5 hours reflects 10% of the 35 hours of 

instrument training that is the minimum 

curriculum hours under appendix C to part 141. 

prices and increased ATD innovation. 

The commenter cited a textbook that he 

or she believed supported this 

position.23 The commenter further 

asserted that this increased competition 

will increase the quality of ATDs. The 

commenter compared the current 

situation regarding the use of ATDs to 

digital chart maturation,24 arguing that 

when regulation is applied 

inappropriately, innovation may be 

stifled. Thus, the commenter asserted, 

expanded use of ATDs has derivative 

benefits consistent with a long-term 

view of aviation and safety. 

FAA Response: The FAA generally 

agrees that permitting the greater use of 

ATDs may increase the demand for 

ATDs. In turn, the increased demand for 

ATDs may result in more firms entering 

the market, increasing competition, and 

perhaps in more technical innovation in 

ATDs. The FAA, however, restricts the 

economic impact analysis to the initial 

impact, as each succeeding economic 

impact is more speculative. 

As noted previously, the intent of the 

specific request for information was to 

seek any additional relevant data or 

institutional research that supports the 

training and safety advantages when 

using ATDs, or establishes that such 

devices do not enhance pilot training 

and flight safety. The intent of this 

regulation is not to foster development 

of ATDs. The FAA emphasizes that even 

without this regulation persons are 

permitted to use ATDs and FSTDs to 

gain further experience in addition to 

any time that may be expressly 

creditable when using ATDs or FSTDs 

under the regulations. 

Finally, the commenter asserted that 

economic growth of ATDs will offer 

enhanced applications of ATDs by 

researchers and innovators, contributing 

to aviation safety.25 The commenter 

argued that ATD maturation in 

operational training environments will 

enable such forward-thinking training 

frameworks. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

it is likely that the purchase and use of 

ATDs will increase with the additional 

FAA allowances provided for minimum 

pilot experience requirements. 

Additionally, the Tuccio research paper 

referenced by the commenter generally 

supports the use of simulation in 

aviation pilot training specific to 

heuristics 26 but does not speak directly 

to any particular simulator design or 

capability. 

3. Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Provisions With Changes 

The FAA received five comments 

supporting the proposed rule but 

recommending changes to the proposed 

regulations. One commenter noted that 

in the proposed rule the FAA 

differentiated between the number of 

hours that were proposed to be credited 

toward the aeronautical experience 

requirements in an AATD (20 hours) 

versus a BATD (10 hours). The 

commenter noted that these differences 

were not stipulated in the proposed text 

of 14 CFR 61.65(i) regarding credit for 

aeronautical experience for the 

instrument rating, and that no 

differentiation was made between 

AATDs and BATDs in part 141 

regarding approved instrument rating 

courses—either in the preamble or the 

regulatory text. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenter and believes that 

providing explicit and separate 

regulatory allowances for BATDs and 

AATDs, as currently provided in the 

FAA LOAs, is appropriate. Specificity 

in the regulation will better inform 

individuals receiving instrument 

training as to the appropriate 

allowances for the different levels of 

ATDs. Therefore, in this final rule the 

FAA is revising § 61.65 and appendix C 

to part 141 to include a specified 

allowance of 10 hours for BATDs and 20 

hours for AATDs in part 61 (combined 

use not to exceed 20 hours), and 25% 

of creditable time in BATDs and 40% of 

creditable time for AATDs under part 

141 (not to exceed 40% total time) for 

the instrument rating. 

Currently, under the conditions and 

limitations set forth in the LOAs, 

training providers must provide copies 

of LOAs to people who receive training 

in the device. By providing a copy of the 

LOA, pilots who receive training will 

know the amount of training that may 

be logged in the device for the purpose 

of meeting the aeronautical experience 

requirements for a certificate or rating. 

The same commenter believed that 

there could be confusion regarding the 

amount of time that can be credited 

when using a BATD, and when using 

percentages of simulator, FTD, AATD 

and BATD time that can be used in 

combination. For example, the 

commenter asserted that under 

appendix C to part 141, section 4(b)(4) 

as proposed, providing 40% of the 

required training in a BATD and 10% in 

a simulator would satisfy the letter of 

the rule. 

FAA Response: As discussed 

previously, the FAA agrees with the 

commenter and is providing for separate 

specific regulatory allowances for 

BATDs and AATDs and clarifying the 

total creditable percentages of time 

when using BATDs and AATDs in 

combination with other FAA approved 

training devices. 

The same commenter believed that 

the FAA was being inconsistent in its 

treatment of time that could be credited 

when using a BATD in part 61 versus 

part 141. The commenter noted that the 

FAA had proposed that 10 hours of the 

40 hours required could be obtained 

using a BATD under part 61 (25% of the 

hours needed), whereas the FAA had 

proposed that 10% of the hours could 

be credited in a BATD under part 141 

(3.5 hours).27 Based on the commenter’s 

understanding of the FAA proposal, the 

commenter recommended that the total 

number of hours that could be credited 

when using a BATD under part 141 be 

increased to 20% of the total hours (7 

hours of the 35 hours required). 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenter and will provide a 

consistent allowance in the regulation 

for ATD credit when using a BATD or 

AATD under part 61 and part 141. To 

provide a consistent allowance under 

part 141 training requirements for the 

instrument rating, in this final rule the 

FAA is allowing up to a 25% credit 

(8.75 hours) when using a BATD for the 

minimum training time requirements. 

One commenter noted that the FAA 

does not differentiate regarding the use 

of AATDs versus BATDs anywhere else 

in part 141. The commenter believed 

that by differentiating AATDs from 

BATDs, it would now be possible to 

allow credit for AATD use toward flight 

times for private pilot, commercial pilot, 

flight instructor and additional rating 

courses. Another commenter requested 

that the FAA consider expanding the 

utilization of these devices for the 

private pilot rating as well from the 

current 2.5 hours to 10 hours. Another 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter requested that appendix G 

of part 141 be revised to permit flight 

instructors to use AATDs in their own 

training. The commenter asserted that if 

instrument instructors are to teach 

effectively in ATDs, then it is logical 

those same instructors should use ATDs 

during their own training in order to 

realize economic and safety benefits of 

ATDs similar to those provided by the 

new rule under appendix C to part 141, 

and learn effective ATD training 

techniques. Yet another commenter 

suggested expanding the creditable use 

of ATDs to all certificates—airline 

transport pilot, commercial, private, 

flight instructor, etc. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenters and is providing 

separate regulatory allowances for 

BATDs and AATDs as described 

previously and clarifying the amount of 

creditable time when BATDs and 

AATDs are used in combination with 

FSTDs for instrument training. The FAA 

notes that part 61 provides time 

allowances for private pilot, commercial 

pilot, and airline transport pilot in an 

FSTD that is representative of the 

aircraft category, class, and type if 

appropriate. Currently, the FAA 

approves the use of ATDs for private 

pilot, commercial pilot, and airline 

transport pilot certification through the 

issuance of LOAs under the 

Administrator’s authority in § 61.4(c). 

The FAA will consider this comment 

concerning specific regulatory credit for 

ATDs to meet the requirements for pilot 

certificates and may address it in other 

rulemakings as appropriate. 

One commenter asserted that current 

regulations regarding the use of ATDs 

for instrument proficiency checks under 

14 CFR 61.57 is confusing. The 

commenter noted that § 61.57(d)(1)(i) 

specifies that the instrument proficiency 

check must be conducted in an aircraft 

while the Instrument Practical Test 

Standard specifies that both FSTDs or 

AATDs may be used for part or all of the 

instrument proficiency check. The 

commenter recommended that the 

regulations be clarified to correspond to 

the practical test standard. 

FAA Response: This comment is 

outside the scope of the proposed rule. 

The FAA notes, however, that 

§ 61.57(d)(1)(ii) provides an allowance 

for use of an FSTD that is representative 

of the aircraft category when conducting 

the instrument proficiency check. The 

FAA will consider this comment 

concerning the use of an ATD for the 

instrument proficiency check and the 

reference in the Instrument Practical 

Test that allows its use and will address 

it in other rulemakings as appropriate. 

One commenter requested a variety of 

changes to § 61.57(c) regarding 

instrument experience and recency for 

pilots in command. The commenter 

highlighted differences between current 

requirements for completing instrument 

experience using an ATD to maintain 

instrument experience (§ 61.57(c)(3)); 

completing instrument recency 

experience using a combination of an 

aircraft and a full flight simulator, FTD, 

and ATD (§ 61.57(c)(4)); and completing 

instrument experience using a 

combination of a flight simulator or 

FTD, and an ATD (§ 61.57(c)(5)). 

FAA Response: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA will consider these comments 

and may address them in other 

rulemakings as appropriate. 

Finally, one commenter 

recommended changes to permit ground 

instructors to use ATDs to train their 

students. 

FAA Response: The FAA allows 

ground instructors certain privileges. 

This includes training for aeronautical 

knowledge typically in a classroom 

environment and authorizing students 

for knowledge tests. While a ground 

instructor may use an ATD to illustrate 

ground training concepts, such training 

may not be logged to meet the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for certificates and ratings. Providing 

flight training—or training in FSTDs or 

ATDs that can substitute for some of the 

required flight training—is a privilege 

reserved for flight instructors who have 

been evaluated during a practical test on 

the ability to provide flight training. 

Expanding this privilege to ground 

instructors is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

4. Comments Opposing the Proposed 

Provisions 

Three commenters opposed the 

proposed provisions. 

One commenter, who identified 

himself as a flight instructor, believed 

that new instrument pilots need the 

stress, noise, and feeling of the real 

airplane when forming their habits and 

acquiring their skills, not the quiet, 

controlled, sterile atmosphere of a 

simulator. While the commenter 

supported the use of simulators later, he 

did not believe they are appropriate for 

new pilots. 

FAA Response: The FAA somewhat 

disagrees with this commenter’s general 

statement that pilots ‘‘. . . need the 

stress and noise and feeling of the real 

item when forming their habits and 

acquiring their skills, not the quiet 

controlled sterile atmosphere of a SIM.’’ 

The FAA contends that training in an 

ATD allows reduction in unnecessary 

distractions during initial training and 

permits focus on the important 

fundamental instrument skills and tasks 

necessary for safe and controlled 

instrument flight. This includes 

practicing emergency procedures and 

other maneuvers that cannot be safely 

accomplished in an aircraft. Practice in 

an FSTD or ATD until a pilot performs 

a particular segment of a procedure or 

action correctly, before attempting to do 

the same complex tasks in an aircraft, is 

an acceptable and desirable practice. 

The FAA also contends that because 

a significant portion of the instrument 

time must be accomplished in an 

aircraft, the stress and noise experience 

and the feeling for the real environment 

discussed by the commenter will be 

provided during that time. Additionally, 

the FAA notes that § 61.65(d)(2)(i) 

(airplane) and § 61.65(e)(2)(i) 

(helicopter) currently require that three 

hours of training must be accomplished 

in an aircraft within two months of the 

practical test. The required instrument 

training on cross country procedures 

under instrument flight rules, including 

a flight of 250 nautical miles with at 

least three different instrument 

approaches and an instrument approach 

at each airport, must also be 

accomplished in an aircraft. 

The FAA believes that training in 

FSTDs and ATDs, when used in 

conjunction with training in an aircraft, 

teach an instrument student to trust the 

appropriate sense, vision, in order to 

successfully operate an aircraft in low 

visibility conditions. Training in an 

ATD reinforces this necessary skill. Any 

reliance on ‘‘sounds or feel’’ may 

ultimately lead to loss of control when 

operating an aircraft in instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC). 

Because ignoring the postural senses 

involves relying on visual clues, the 

ATD provides an excellent platform for 

a pilot to develop this portion of his or 

her instrument flying skills. A person 

must use his or her vision and focus on 

the flight instruments to successfully 

operate an aircraft, FSTD, or ATD in 

IMC conditions. The FAA recognizes 

that training devices do not require 

motion in order to be approved as an 

ATD; thus, these devices are limited in 

that they cannot completely train the 

pilot to ignore outside sensory 

perceptions. However, the FAA finds 

that a pilot can develop this ability 

during the aeronautical experience that 

an applicant for an instrument rating 

must obtain in an aircraft. 

Another commenter, who also 

identified himself as a flight instructor, 

believed that FTDs and simulators do a 

good job at pretending to be an airplane 

in terms of learning procedures, but 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21457 

28Anonymous, Docket No. FAA–2015–1846– 

0031. 

they are not an airplane. The commenter 

believed that an ATD cannot give the 

true feeling of transitioning from visual 

meteorological conditions (VMC) to 

IMC, especially while climbing or 

turning. The commenter asserted that 

unless a provision is added to the rule 

to require the student to have more 

flight training in IMC conditions (the 

commenter recommended 5 hours), 

adding 10 hours of ATD time will only 

make the instrument pilots of the future 

less capable of flying in IMC. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenter that these trainers 

(ATDs) do a great job for learning 

procedures, but disagrees that ATDs 

cannot adequately provide for simulated 

transitions from VMC to IMC. Very often 

a pilot does not ‘‘feel’’ anything in an 

aircraft during these transitions. The 

FAA has evaluated hundreds of ATD 

visual systems and has found them to 

have adequate fidelity and capabilities, 

as required in AC 61–136A, to simulate 

visibility transition scenarios. In fact, 

many of the FAA approved visual 

systems provide for numerous scenarios 

including flying through multiple layers 

of clouds and varying visibility 

conditions. This commenter fails to 

provide an adequate explanation to 

support his or her position. 

Additionally, the commenter’s 

discussion of FFSs, FTDs and PCATDs 

is outside the scope of this ATD 

rulemaking. 

The third commenter addressed 

specific comments relating to a 

particular ATD. The commenter 

referenced Redbird ATDs, and asserted 

that: 

[T]heir panels are limiting in the sense that 

switches are not the same in the simulator as 

it is [sic] in the airplane. . . . The Redbird 

simulator does not provide a volume knob for 

either the COM or NAV which contains the 

ID mode. This is a required step in order to 

properly identify a VOR station. . . . The 

standby instruments is graphically depicted 

but the position of these instruments does 

not reflect the real location of where these 

instruments are installed.28

The commenter also expressed 

concern regarding updated databases to 

these training devices. The commenter 

believed that any ATD should be 

required to have the latest navigation 

database running on the ATD. 

FAA response: The FAA notes that 

the commenter’s discussion is 

concentrated on the dislike of the 

functionality of the Redbird trainer, 

rather than the ATD allowances for the 

proposed rule. The FAA agrees, 

however, that ATDs (the FAA assumes 

that the commenter is discussing a 

particular Redbird AATD based on the 

content of his initial statements) are not 

identical to the actual aircraft. The FAA 

emphasizes that, assuming the ATD in 

question received a LOA from the FAA, 

it met or exceeded the minimum fidelity 

and capability requirements specified 

for such devices in AC 61–136A. ATD 

fidelity requirements do not require that 

ATDs be exactly like that of the aircraft. 

The FAA notes that the Redbird Flight 

Simulations ATDs the FAA has 

approved through LOA do provide for 

the ability to update the database to 

reflect current instrument approach 

procedures. Appendix 2 of the AC 

states: The ATD must have at least a 

navigational area database that is local 

to the training facility to allow 

reinforcement of procedures learned 

during actual flight in that area. All 

navigational data must be based on 

procedures as published per 14 CFR 

part 97 (STANDARD INSTRUMENT 

PROCEDURES). The FAA has evaluated 

many of the Redbird training devices 

and finds that they meet the standards 

in AC 61–136A for ATD approval. If one 

were to prefer greater fidelity or more 

exacting duplication of certain aircraft 

configurations, then the FAA would 

suggest the use of a higher fidelity FAA 

approved training device such as an 

FTD or FFS. However, the FAA 

standards set forth in AC 61–136A are 

appropriate to training instrument 

procedures as described in Appendix 4, 

Training Content and Logging 

Provisions. This describes what 

instrument tasks can be successfully 

taught in ATDs. 

5. Comments Opposing the Process 

Two commenters expressed strong 

objections to the path the FAA took 

regarding this rulemaking. They 

objected to the withdrawal of the direct 

final rule, and believed that the adverse 

comments the FAA received during the 

comment period for the direct final rule 

should not have caused the agency to 

withdraw the rulemaking. They also 

believed the FAA should have acted 

more quickly once the original 

discrepancy between the regulations 

and policy was identified. 

FAA Response: Part 11 of title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations 

mandates the process and 

responsibilities associated with 

rulemaking. The FAA is required to 

follow those requirements even if 

viewed as unnecessary or inconvenient 

by a segment of the public. The 

Administrative Procedure Act requires 

the FAA to provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

rulemakings, allowing the public to 

influence or suggest changes to those 

proposals. The FAA is committed to 

regulate fairly, promote safety, and 

works diligently within the confines of 

the rulemaking process. 

B. View-Limiting Device 

The FAA proposed to revise 

§ 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the 

requirement that pilots accomplishing 

instrument time in an ATD wear a viewlimiting device. The FAA emphasizes, 

however, that a pilot—whether in an 

aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD—may log 

instrument time only when the pilot is 

operating solely by reference to the 

instruments under actual or simulated 

conditions. If a pilot is using an ATD 

and the device is providing visual 

references upon which the pilot is 

relying, this would not constitute 

instrument time under § 61.51(g). 

Comments received: The FAA 

received six comments from SAFE, 

NAFI, and four individuals, supporting 

the elimination of the requirement that 

pilots accomplishing instrument time in 

an ATD wear a view-limiting device. 

SAFE explained its support for removal 

of the provision, noting that a benefit of 

using ATDs is simulation of the cockpit 

environment. SAFE asserted that that 

benefit is lost when the student is 

required to wear such a device. SAFE 

asserted that most students quickly 

become so immersed in the ATD 

experience that there is no need for a 

view-limiting device to further focus 

them on the instrument panel. All other 

commenters provided general support 

and did not explain or further justify 

their support for removal of this 

requirement. 

FAA response: As the FAA stated 

when discussing the support it received 

for removing this requirement in the 

direct final rule, the FAA agrees that it 

is unnecessary for a student to wear a 

view-limiting device when using an 

ATD. The FAA finds that this 

requirement is not necessary because 

ATDs do not afford relevant outside 

references. Therefore, the FAA is 

revising 14 CFR 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate 

the requirement that pilots 

accomplishing instrument time in an 

ATD wear a view-limiting device. 

C. Conforming Amendments and 

Nomenclature Change 

While considering these changes, the 

FAA became aware that other 

appendices in part 141 reference 

§ 141.41(a) when discussing FFS, and 

§ 141.41(b) when discussing FTDs and 

ATDs. As this rule consolidates 

requirements related to FFS and FTDs 

into § 141.41(a), and adds new 

paragraph (b) related to ATDs, the FAA 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

is correcting cross-references in 

appendices C, D, E, F, G, J, K, and M. 

Further, while considering these 

regulatory changes, the FAA noted that 

the nomenclature regarding flight 

simulators has changed. The definition 

as found in § 1.1 references a ‘‘full flight 

simulator’’ whereas the regulations 

often use the older nomenclature ‘‘flight 

simulator.’’ Therefore, in the sections 

the FAA has determined need to be 

revised as part of the final rule, the FAA 

is removing the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’’ wherever they appear and 

replacing them with the words ‘‘full 

flight simulator.’’ 

VI. Advisory Circulars and Other 

Guidance Materials 

To further implement this rule, the 

FAA is revising the following FAA 

Order: FAA Order 8900.1, Flight 

Standards Information Management 

System, Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 

1, (Basic and Advanced Aviation 

Training Device) Approval and 

Authorized Use under 14 CFR parts 61 

and 141. 

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354), as codified in 

5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 96–39), as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from 

setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 

25, requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not 

an economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866; (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Department of Transportation DOT 

Order 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 be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

The provisions included in this rule 

are either relieving or voluntary. The 

elimination of the requirement to use a 

view-limiting device is a relieving 

provision. The other two provisions are 

voluntary and cost relieving—additional 

ATD credit for instrument time for an 

instrument rating and additional ATD 

credit for approved instrument courses, 

if acted upon, is less expensive than 

flight training time. The FAA made the 

same cost-benefit determination as part 

of the direct final rule (79 FR 71634, 

Dec. 3, 2014) and on this part of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 

34338, Jun. 16, 2015) and received no 

comments. 

Two commenters, both of whom 

identified themselves as private pilots 

working toward their instrument 

ratings, discussed the potential for cost 

relief provided by the proposed rule. 

Both commenters estimated that time in 

an approved simulator with an 

instructor costs about $100 per hour, 

while dual time in an instrument flight 

rules-certified aircraft is $200 per hour 

or more. These commenters asserted 

that adding an extra 10 hours of 

simulator time reduces $1,000 from the 

overall training cost. 

Persons who use the new provisions 

will do so only if the benefit they will 

accrue from their use exceeds the costs 

they might incur to comply. Given the 

hundreds of LOAs issued, industry’s 

high usage of ATDs, and SAFE’s, 

AOPA’s, and NAFI’s endorsements of 

ATDs, the change in requirements is 

likely to be relieving. Benefits will 

exceed the costs of a voluntary rule if 

just one person voluntarily complies. 

Since this rule will offer a lower cost 

alternative, will provide regulatory 

relief for the use of view-limiting 

devices, and will allow greater 

voluntary use of ATDs, the expected 

outcome will be cost relieving to 

minimal impact with positive net 

benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Most of the parties affected by this 

rule will be small businesses such as 

flight instructors, aviation schools, and 

fixed base operators. The general lack of 

publicly available financial information 

from these small businesses precludes a 

financial analysis of these small 

businesses. While there is likely a 

substantial number of small entities 

affected, the provisions of this rule are 

either relieving (directly provides cost 

relief) or voluntary (provides benefits or 

costs only if a person voluntarily 

chooses to use the rule provision). Thus, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21459 

the FAA determines that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA made the same 

determination as part of the direct final 

rule (79 FR 71634, Dec. 3, 2014) and as 

part of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (80 FR 34338, Jun. 16, 2015) 

and, in both cases, we requested, but 

did not receive, any comments. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this rule and determined that 

it will have only a domestic impact and 

therefore will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This rule does not contain such a 

mandate. Therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it will not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and will not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VIII. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies, or 

• Accessing the Government 

Publishing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.fdsys.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by docket 

or amendment number of the rule) to 

the Federal Aviation Administration, 

Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–9677. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed from the 

Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced 

previously. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

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

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Airmen, Educational facilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729, 

44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 61.65 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(8)(ii), (c) 

introductory text, and (h), remove the 

words ‘‘flight simulator’’ and add in 

their place the words ‘‘full flight 

simulator’’; and, 

■ b. Revise paragraph (i) and add 

paragraph (j). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 61.65 Instrument rating requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) Use of an aviation training device. 

A maximum of 10 hours of instrument 

time received in a basic aviation 

training device or a maximum of 20 

hours of instrument time received in an 

advanced aviation training device may 

be credited for the instrument time 

requirements of this section if— 

(1) The device is approved and 

authorized by the FAA; 

(2) An authorized instructor provides 

the instrument time in the device; and 

(3) The FAA approved the instrument 

training and instrument tasks performed 

in the device. 

(j) Except as provided in paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section, a person may not 

credit more than 20 total hours of 

instrument time in a full flight 

simulator, flight training device, 

aviation training device, or a 

combination towards the instrument 

time requirements of this section. 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 4. Revise § 141.41 to read as follows: 

§ 141.41 Full flight simulators, flight 

training devices, aviation training devices, 

and training aids. 

An applicant for a pilot school 

certificate or a provisional pilot school 

certificate must show that its full flight 

simulators, flight training devices, 

aviation training devices, training aids, 

and equipment meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Full flight simulators and flight 

training devices. Each full flight 

simulator and flight training device 

used to obtain flight training credit in an 

approved pilot training course 

curriculum must be: 

(1) Qualified under part 60 of this 

chapter, or a previously qualified 

device, as permitted in accordance with 

§ 60.17 of this chapter; and 

(2) Approved by the Administrator for 

the tasks and maneuvers. 

(b) Aviation training devices. Each 

basic or advanced aviation training 

device used to obtain flight training 

credit in an approved pilot training 

course curriculum must be evaluated, 

qualified, and approved by the 

Administrator. 

(c) Training aids and equipment. Each 

training aid, including any audiovisual 

aid, projector, mockup, chart, or aircraft 

component listed in the approved 

training course outline, must be 

accurate and relevant to the course for 

which it is used. 

■ 5. In appendix B to part 141, revise 

paragraph (c) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 141—Private Pilot 

Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(c) For use of full flight simulators or 

flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets the requirements of 

this paragraph, and the training is given 

by an authorized instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 20 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 15 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in full flight simulators or 

flight training devices described in 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, 

if used in combination, may be credited 

for a maximum of 20 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. However, credit for 

training in a flight training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In appendix C to part 141, revise 

paragraph (b) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix C to Part 141—Instrument 

Rating Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of full flight 

simulators, flight training devices, or 

aviation training devices— 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator, flight training 

device, or aviation training device, 

provided it is representative of the 

aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets the requirements of 

this paragraph, and the training is given 

by an authorized instructor. 

(2) Credit for training in a full flight 

simulator that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) cannot exceed 50 percent of 

the total flight training hour 

requirements of the course or of this 

section, whichever is less. 

(3) Credit for training in a flight 

training device that meets the 

requirements of § 141.41(a), an 

advanced aviation training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(b), or 

a combination of these devices cannot 

exceed 40 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements of the course 

or of this section, whichever is less. 

Credit for training in a basic aviation 

training device that meets the 

requirements of § 141.41(b) cannot 

exceed 25 percent of the total training 

hour requirements permitted under this 

paragraph. 

(4) Credit for training in full flight 

simulators, flight training devices, and 

aviation training devices if used in 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21461 

combination, cannot exceed 50 percent 

of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the course or of this 

section, whichever is less. However, 

credit for training in a flight training 

device or aviation training device 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In appendix D to part 141, revise 

paragraph (c) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix D to Part 141—Commercial 

Pilot Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(c) For the use of full flight simulators 

or flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets the requirements of 

this paragraph, and is given by an 

authorized instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 30 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 20 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in the flight training 

devices described in paragraphs (c)(2) 

and (3) of this section, if used in 

combination, may be credited for a 

maximum of 30 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. However, credit for 

training in a flight training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In appendix E to part 141, revise 

paragraph (b) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix E to Part 141—Airline 

Transport Pilot Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of full flight simulators 

or flight training devices— 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets the requirements of 

this paragraph, and the training is given 

by an authorized instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 50 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 25 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in full flight simulators or 

flight training devices described in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, 

if used in combination, may be credited 

for a maximum of 50 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. However, credit for 

training in a flight training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In appendix F to part 141, revise 

paragraph (b) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix F to Part 141—Flight 

Instructor Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of flight simulators or 

flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets the requirements of 

this paragraph, and the training is given 

by an authorized instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 10 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 5 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in full flight simulators or 

flight training devices described in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, 

if used in combination, may be credited 

for a maximum of 10 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. However, credit for 

training in a flight training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In appendix G to part 141, revise 

paragraph (b) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix G to Part 141—Flight 

Instructor Instrument (For an Airplane, 

Helicopter, or Powered-Lift Instrument 

Instructor Rating, as Appropriate) 

Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of full flight simulators 

or flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved for, meets requirements of this 

paragraph, and the training is given by 

an instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 10 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 5 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in full flight simulators or 

flight training devices described in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, 

if used in combination, may be credited 

for a maximum of 10 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. However, credit for 

training in a flight training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(b) 

cannot exceed the limitation provided 

for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In appendix J to part 141, revise 

paragraph (b) in section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix J to Part 141—Aircraft Type 

Rating Course, For Other Than an 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of full flight simulators 

or flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a full flight simulator or flight training 

device, provided it is representative of 

the aircraft for which the course is 

approved, meets requirements of this 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph, and the training is given by 

an authorized instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 50 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 25 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in the full flight 

simulators or flight training devices 

described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of 

this section, if used in combination, 

may be credited for a maximum of 50 

percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or 

of this section, whichever is less. 

However, credit training in a flight 

training device that meets the 

requirements of § 141.41(a) cannot 

exceed the limitation provided for in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In appendix K to part 141, revise 

section 4 to read as follows: 

Appendix K to Part 141—Special 

Preparation Courses 

* * * * * 

4. Use of full flight simulators or flight 

training devices. (a) The approved 

special preparation course may include 

training in a full flight simulator or 

flight training device, provided it is 

representative of the aircraft for which 

the course is approved, meets 

requirements of this paragraph, and the 

training is given by an authorized 

instructor. 

(b) Except for the airline transport 

pilot certification program in section 13 

of this appendix, training in a full flight 

simulator that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), may be credited for a 

maximum of 10 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(c) Except for the airline transport 

pilot certification program in section 13 

of this appendix, training in a flight 

training device that meets the 

requirements of § 141.41(a), may be 

credited for a maximum of 5 percent of 

the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or 

of this section, whichever is less. 

(d) Training in the full flight 

simulators or flight training devices 

described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section, if used in combination, 

may be credited for a maximum of 10 

percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or 

of this section, whichever is less. 

However, credit for training in a flight 

training device that meets the 

requirements of § 141.41(a) cannot 

exceed the limitation provided for in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In appendix M to part 141, revise 

paragraph (c) of section 4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix M to Part 141—Combined 

Private Pilot Certification and 

Instrument Rating Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. 

* * * * * 

(c) For use of full flight simulators or 

flight training devices: 

(1) The course may include training in 

a combination of full flight simulators, 

flight training devices, and aviation 

training devices, provided it is 

representative of the aircraft for which 

the course is approved, meets the 

requirements of this section, and the 

training is given by an authorized 

instructor. 

(2) Training in a full flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) may be credited for a 

maximum of 35 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(3) Training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a) or an aviation training 

device that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(b) may be credited for a 

maximum of 25 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements of the 

approved course, or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Training in a combination of flight 

simulators, flight training devices, or 

aviation training devices, described in 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, 

may be credited for a maximum of 35 

percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or 

of this section, whichever is less. 

However, credit for training in a flight 

training device and aviation training 

device, that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(b), cannot exceed the limitation 

provided for in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 

44703(a), on April 4, 2016. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08388 Filed 4–8–16; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2015–1126] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake 

Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent 

Island, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing special local regulations for 

certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. 

This action is necessary to provide for 

the safety of life on these navigable 

waters located between Sandy Point, 

Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent 

Island, Queen Anne’s County, MD, 

during a paddling event on May 14, 

2016. This rulemaking will prohibit 

persons and vessels from being in the 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Baltimore or Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 

a.m. on May 14, 2016 through 12:30 

p.m. on May 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015– 

1126 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 

410–576–2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES