[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2001-2002]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0987; Amdt. Nos. 61-133, 141-18]
RIN 2120-AK62

Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification;
Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a direct final rule regarding aviation
training devices published December 3, 2014. That rule would have
relieved burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience
for an instrument rating by increasing the allowed use of aviation
training devices. The FAA received adverse comments to the direct final
rule and, thus, is withdrawing the direct final rule.

DATES: The direct final rule published on December 3, 2014 at 79 FR
71634 is withdrawn, effective January 15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification and Training
Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-810, Federal Aviation
Administration, 55 M Street SE., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Anne Moore,
International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, Office of the
Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8018; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 3, 2014, the FAA published a direct final rule
regarding use of aviation training devices (ATDs). The direct final
rule would have increased the maximum time that may be credited in an
ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an instrument rating
under Sec.  61.65(i). The direct final rule would have permitted a
person to credit a maximum of 20 hours of instrument time in an
approved ATD toward the requirements for an instrument rating under
that section.
    The direct final rule would have also 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.
With this direct final rule, an ATD would have been permitted to be
used for no more than 40 percent of the total flight training hour
requirements for an instrument rating.
    Finally, the direct final rule would have revised Sec.  61.65(i)(4)
to eliminate the requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time
in an ATD wear a view-limiting device.

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

    The FAA is withdrawing the direct final rule because the agency
received adverse comments to the rule. The agency is obligated by Sec.
11.13 to withdraw a direct final rule if the agency receives any
adverse comments. One commenter raised concerns regarding the
effectiveness of ATDs for training, suggesting that these devices do
not provide appropriate sensory cues or provide a realistic
environment. Another commenter believed that the increases in time/
percentage of training contained in the direct final rule were too
great.
    As a result of this withdrawal, the current regulations remain in
effect, which provides that no applicant for an instrument rating under
part 61 may credit 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. In
addition, no graduate of a training program approved under appendix C
to part 141 may credit more than 10% of the required coursework in ATDs
(unless that program has been approved in accordance with Sec.
141.55(d) or (e)).
    The FAA notes that the regulations do not place a limit on the
amount of time that a person may train in an ATD. Rather, the
regulations place a limit on the amount of time in an ATD that may be
credited toward the minimum aeronautical experience requirements for an
instrument rating. Operators may continue to use these devices to
improve pilot proficiency and potentially reduce the overall time
required in an aircraft. In addition, those devices that were issued an
LOA that terminated on January 1, 2015, may continue to use the device
for pilot proficiency and training. However, any time logged in such a
device could not be used to meet any aeronautical experience
requirements of part 61, or any of the flight training coursework
requirements of part 141.

Conclusion

    Withdrawal of Amendment Nos. 61-133 and 141-18 does not preclude
the FAA from issuing rulemaking on the subject in the future; nor does
it commit the agency to any future course of action. The agency will
make any future necessary changes to the Code of Federal Regulations
through a notice of proposed rulemaking with opportunity for public
comment.
    Therefore, the FAA withdraws Amendment Nos. 61-133 and 141-18
published at 79 FR 71634, December 3, 2014.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
44701(a)(5), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2015.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-00553 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


david. e. brann@ gm. com Transmission Date: 03/ 29/ 2005 06: 19: 02 PM To: David. Ducharme@ Trans. ge. com cc:" Kelly, Brian E ( GE Trans)" < Brian. Kelly@ Trans. ge. com>, cweaver@ railpower. com, " Rumpf, John ( GE Trans, Legal)" < john. rumpf@ ae. ge. com>, kkokrda@ enginemanufacturers. org, " Baran, Len ( GE Trans)" < Len. Baran@ Trans. ge. com>, mrush@ aar. org, " Lawson, Pete J ( GE Trans)" < pete. lawson@ Trans. ge. com>, rftimmons@ aslrra. org, sfritz@ swri. org, Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: RE: GE comments to proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 92 with attachment Dave,

Continuing the dialog:

With regard to the language requiring a description of any limits imposed by the certificate holder for remanufactured locomotives ( Section 92.203( d)( 1)( ii)( D)), as I interpret that was added by EPA in response to comments made by EMA with regard to the certificate holder's liability for locomotives remanufactured under the 5 year cumulative provision of the rule In discussion at our 8 February EMA EPA meeting, Chuck Moulis said that certificate holders were free to place whatever restrictions that they felt necessary of the application of their kits. That being the case, and so long as GETS is doing something of that sort already, I'd be just as happy to leave that language out.

The two label requirement doesn't really answer the railroad practice of moving engines from locomotive to locomotive. The labels are supposed to match; engine families should be the same. So, for instance, moving an engine from a wrecked locomotive of a 2004 family to a unit of a 2003 family with a catastrophically failed engine results in a mismatch, even if the 2004 family is a carryover from the 2003 family. Having two labels thus actually hampers the transplanting of locomotive engines. This problem could be avoided by having only one label, whether on the engine or the locomotive.

Regards,

Dave " Ducharme, David J \( GE Trans\)" < David. Ducharme@ Tr ans. ge. com> To: < david. e. brann@ gm. com> cc: " Kelly, Brian E \( GE Trans\)" < Brian. Kelly@ Trans. ge. com>, < cweaver@ railpower. com>, " Rumpf, John \( GE Trans, Legal\)" < john. rumpf@ ae. ge. com>, < kkokrda@ enginemanufacturers. org>, " Baran, Len \( GE Trans\)" < Len. Baran@ Trans. ge. com>, < mrush@ aar. org>, " Lawson, Pete J \( GE Trans\)" < pete. lawson@ Trans. ge. com>, < rftimmons@ aslrra. org>, < sfritz@ swri. org>, < Stout. Alan@ epamail. epa. gov> Subject: RE: GE comments to proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 92 with attachment 03/ 28/ 2005 06: 37 AM Dave, thanks for the clarification. I agree with the position you articulated below but am concerned on the limits wording that the EPA chosen as it may have the opposite effect from your intent and force the OEMs to establish inspection limits in cases where it may not be practical or even possible in a manner that would ensure compliance throughout the useful life. GE already controls acceptable overhual criteria by identifying what components must be replaced or overhauled at the time of a remanufacture. If overhaulers decide to reuse some components without overhaul or refurbishment as called for in our emissions overhaul instructions I believe that the risk is assumed by the overhaulers. I would be happy to confer with EMA/ EMD and the EPA to arrive at mutually acceptable wording if you still believe that the current rule wording is too interpretive. I fully agree that the need for separate labels is questionable at best. My guess is that the EPA is concerned about the railroads practice of switching engines from loco to loco especially when canabalizing parts from wrecks and wants to make sure that each engine retains it's emissions pedigree. Given that all post 1972 engines must be upgraded anyways and the physical differences that have been implemented between Tier 0, 1, and 2 engines it is highly unlikely that an engine will loose it's pedigree however when the origninal rule was written EPA had no way of knowing how the different tier engines might be implemented. Again if EMA/ EMD would like to discuss alternate wording or elimination of a separate engine label further with the EPA GE would be happy to participate.

Best Regards Dave Ducharme  Original Message From: david. e. brann@ gm. com [ mailto: david. e. brann@ gm. com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 5: 15 PM To: Ducharme, David J ( GE Trans) Cc: Kelly, Brian E ( GE Trans); cweaver@ railpower. com; Rumpf, John ( GE Trans, Legal); kkokrda@ enginemanufacturers. org; Baran, Len ( GE Trans); mrush@ aar. org; Lawson, Pete J ( GE Trans); rftimmons@ aslrra. org; sfritz@ swri. org; Stout. Alan@ epamail. epa. gov Subject: Re: GE comments to proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 92 with attachment Dave,

A couple of comments on your comments. Some of the things that you have commented on are the result of comments made by EMA ( mostly at EMD's instigation) to EPA on the proposed technical amendments package. I feel that I should tell you how some of them came about.

15. 92.203  Application for Certification. I believe that the added language in subparagraph ( d)( ii)( D) is EPA's response to our noting that the provision requiring changing all of the power assemblies over five years to trigger the requirement for a remanufacture system to be applied exposed system manufacturers to a higher liability for emissions performance than application of a system at a single event overhaul did. In fact, the holder of a remanufacture system certificate could be responsible for the emissions of a locomotive with some power assemblies one useful life plus five years old. At the meeting we had with EPA on February 8, Chuck Moulis said that manufacturers could place whatever restrictions they wanted on the application of their kits to locomotives. I look at the wording that EPA has inserted as a clarification of that, and a requirement to list what restrictions are imposed, if any.

20. 92.212  Labeling. The changes that EPA has proposed are in response to our comments that the wording of the present engine and locomotive labels is so similar as to cause confusion in application of remanufacture system labels in the field. I don't believe that EPA has any intent of asking us to campaign the field to replace all of the labels that have been applied since 2000. Also in my opinion, the changes that EPA has made do not go far enough, in that there is considerable confusion on railroads on the meaning of the word " engine." When we say " engine," we mean an HDL or a 710; when railroaders say " engine," they as often as not mean what is to us and EPA a " locomotive." So wording added to the label saying " Apply this label to the engine," as indirectly suggested by EPA, is ambiguous on the railroads. I'd really prefer to see the wording of the labels be made identical, if there must be two; in the best of all possible worlds ( that dwelt in by the truck and non road engine manufacturers) there would be only one.

Regards,

Dave " Ducharme, David J ( GE Trans)" < David. Ducharme@ Trans. ge. com> Transmission Date: 03/ 23/ 2005 09: 53: 35 AM To: Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, cweaver@ railpower. com, david. e. brann@ gm. com, mrush@ aar. org, rftimmons@ aslrra. org, sfritz@ swri. org, kkokrda@ enginemanufacturers. org cc:" Lawson, Pete J ( GE Trans)" < pete. lawson@ Trans. ge. com>, " Rumpf, John ( GE Trans, Legal)" < john. rumpf@ ae. ge. com>, " Baran, Len ( GE Trans)" < Len. Baran@ Trans. ge. com>, " Kelly, Brian E ( GE Trans)" < Brian. Kelly@ Trans. ge. com> Subject: GE comments to proposed changes to 40 CRFR Part 92 with attachment Alan, attached are GE comments to the EPA proposed changes to Part 92. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments further please call me at 814 875 2084. Thank you Dave Ducharme  Original Message From: Stout. Alan@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Stout. Alan@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4: 46 PM To: cweaver@ railpower. com; david. e. brann@ gm. com; Ducharme, David J ( GE Trans); mrush@ aar. org; rftimmons@ aslrra. org; sfritz@ swri. org; kkokrda@ enginemanufacturers. org Subject:

Attached is updated draft regulatory language for the technical amendments to 40 CFR part 92. We intend to adopt these changes as part of our final rule later this year. This advance draft is intended to give opportunity to review these technical changes to make sure everything lines up. Let us know if anything needs further attention.

The file includes redline information showing what has changed since the proposal. Alan Stout U. S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2000 Traverwood Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4805 734 214 4816 ( fax) stout. alan@ epa. gov www. epa. gov/ otaq/ locomotv. htm