37836 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, 108, 121, and

135

[Docket No. FAA–2000–7497; Notice No. 00–

06]

RIN 2120–AH01

Advanced Qualification Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to

establish a new termination date for

Special Federal Aviation Regulation

(SFAR) No. 58 (55 FR 40275; October 2,

1990), which provides for the approval

of an alternate method (known as

‘‘Advanced Qualification Program’’ or

‘‘AQP’’) for qualifying, training and

certifying, and otherwise ensuring the

competency of crewmembers, aircraft

dispatchers, other operations personnel,

instructors, and evaluators who are

required to be trained or qualified under

parts 121 and 135 of the FAR. This

proposed extension is necessary to

establish a new termination date for

SFAR 58 to allow time for the FAA to

complete the rulemaking process that

will incorporate SFAR 58 into 14 CFR

part 121. The current termination date

for SFAR 58 is October 2, 2000.

DATES: Send your comments on or

before July 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to

the Docket Management System, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Room

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must

identify the docket number FAA–2000–

7497 at the beginning of your

comments, and you should submit two

copies of your comments. If you wish to

receive confirmation that FAA received

your comments, include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

You may also submit comments

through the Internet to http://

dms.dot.gov. You may review the public

docket containing comments to these

proposed regulations in person in the

Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. The Dockets

Office is on the plaza level of the Nassif

Building at the Department of

Transportation at the above address.

Also, you may review public dockets on

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas M. Longridge, Advanced

Qualification Program Branch, AFS–

230, Air Transportation Division, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, P.O. Box 20027, Dulles

International Airport, Washington, DC

20041–2027; telephone (703) 661–0260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed action by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

document also are invited. Substantive

comments should be accompanied by

cost estimates. Comments must identify

the regulatory docket or notice number

and be submitted in duplicate to the

DOT Rules Docket address specified

above.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning this proposed rulemaking,

will be filed in the docket. The docket

is available for public inspection before

and after the comment closing date.

All comments received on or before

the closing date will be considered by

the Administrator before taking action

on this proposed rulemaking. Comments

filed late will be considered as far as

possible without incurring expense or

delay. The proposals in this document

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this document

must include a pre-addressed, stamped

postcard with those comments on which

the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2000–

7497.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the FAA regulations section of the

FedWorld electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: (703) 321–3339) or

the Government Printing Office (GPO)’s

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: (202) 512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO’s web

page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara

access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

document by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–9680. Communications must

identify the notice number or docket

number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future rulemaking

documents should request from the

above office a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Distribution System, which

describes the application procedure.

Background

In 1975, the FAA began to address

two issues in part 121 pilot training and

checking. One issue was the hardware

requirements needed for total

simulation. The other issue was the

redesign of training programs to deal

with increasingly complex human

factors problems and to increase the

safety benefits derived from the

simulation. At the urging of the air

transportation industry, the FAA

addressed the hardware issue first. This

effort culminated in 1980 in the

development of the Advanced

Simulation Program, set forth in 14 CFR

part 121, Appendix H.

Since then, the FAA has continued to

pursue approaches for the redesign of

training programs to increase the

benefits of Advanced Simulation and to

deal with the increasing complexity of

cockpit human factors.

On August 27, 1987, FAA

Administrator McArtor addressed the

chief pilots and certain executives of

many air carriers at a meeting held in

Kansas City. One of the issues discussed

at the meeting focused on flight

crewmember performance issues. This

meeting led to the creation of a Joint

Government-Industry Task Force on

flightcrew performance (Joint Task

Force). It was comprised of

representatives from major air carriers

and air carrier associations, flightcrew

member associations, commuter air

carrier and regional airline associations,

and government organizations. On

September 10, 1987, the Joint Task

Force met at the Air Transport

Association’s headquarters to identify

and discuss flightcrew member

performance issues. Working groups in

three major areas were formed: (1) Man/

machine interface; (2) flightcrew

member training; and (3) operating

environment. Each working group

submitted a report and

recommendations to the Joint Task

Force. On June 8, 1988, the

recommendations of the Joint Task

Force were presented to Administrator

McArtor.

The major recommendations to the

Administrator from the flightcrew

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37837

member training working group were

the following: (1) Require 14 CFR part

135 commuters whose airplane

operations require two pilots to comply

with part 121 training, checking,

qualification, and record keeping

requirements; (2) Provide for a Special

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) and

Advisory Circular to permit

development of innovative training

programs; (3) Establish a National Air

Carrier Training Program Office that

provides training program oversight at

the national level; (4) Require secondsin-command to satisfactorily perform

their duties under the supervision of

check airmen during operating

experience; (5) Require all training to be

accomplished through a certificate

holder’s training program; (6) Provide

for approval of training programs based

on course content and training aids

rather than using specific programmed

hours; (7) Require Cockpit Resource

Management (CRM) (now called Crew

Resource Management) Training.

Specific recommendations were listed

regarding regulatory changes. The

recommendations were separated into

those changes that should be

incorporated into an SFAR and those

that should be incorporated into an

accompanying Advisory Circular.

In June 1988, the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

issued a Safety Recommendation (A–

88–71) on the subject of CRM. The

recommendation stemmed from an

NTSB accident investigation of a

Northwest Airline crash on August 16,

1987, in which 148 passengers, 6

crewmembers, and 2 people on the

ground were killed.

The NTSB noted that both

crewmembers had received singlecrewmember training during their last

simulator training and proficiency

checks. In addition, the last CRM

training they had received was 3.5 hours

of ground school (general) CRM training

in 1983. As a result of its investigation,

the NTSB recommended that all part

121 carriers:

Review initial and recurrent

flightcrew training programs to ensure

that they include simulator or aircraft

training exercises which involve cockpit

resource management and active

coordination of all crewmember trainees

and which will permit evaluation of

crew performance and adherence to

those crew coordination procedures.

In response to the recommendations

from the Joint Task Force and from the

NTSB, in October 1990, the FAA

published SFAR 58, Advanced

Qualification Program (AQP), which

addresses all of the above

recommendations. The FAA also

published an Advisory Circular on AQP

that describes an acceptable

methodology by which the provisions of

the SFAR may be achieved. Under

SFAR 58, certificated air carriers, as

well as training centers they employ, are

provided with a regulatory alternative

for training, checking, qualifying, and

certifying aircrew personnel subject to

the provisions of 14 CFR parts 121 and

135.

Air carrier participation in AQP is

entirely voluntary. Carriers electing not

to participate may continue to operate

under the traditional FAA provisions for

training and checking. The long range

advantages to participation, however,

are numerous. The regulatory provisions

of AQP offer the flexibility to tailor

training and certification activities to a

carrier’s particular needs and

operational circumstances. They

encourage innovation in the

development of training strategies. They

include wide latitude in choice of

training methods and media. They

permit the use of flight training devices

for training and checking on many tasks

that historically have been

accomplished in airplane simulators.

They provide an approved means for the

applicant to replace FAA-mandated

uniform qualification standards with

carrier-proposed alternatives tailored to

specific aircraft. They permit the

applicant to establish an annual training

and checking schedule for all personnel,

including pilots-in-command, and

provide a basis for extending that

interval under certain circumstances.

From an FAA perspective, the

overriding advantage of AQP is quality

of training. AQP provides a systematic

basis for matching technology to

training requirements and for approving

training program content based on

relevance to operational performance.

The FAA’s goal for this program is to

improve safety through improved

training.

The initial goal of the SFAR was to

improve flightcrew performance by

providing alternative means of

complying with certain current

provisions in the federal aviation

regulations that may inhibit innovative

use of some modern technology that

could facilitate the training of flightcrew

members. The SFAR has encouraged

carriers to become innovative in their

approach to training. Based on the

aviation industry participation and

enthusiasm in AQP, the extension of

SFAR 58 is necessary until the

rulemaking project that will codify AQP

as a permanent regulation is completed.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, directs the FAA

to assess both the costs and benefits of

a regulatory change. We are not allowed

to propose or adopt a regulation unless

we make a reasoned determination that

the benefits of the intended regulation

justify the costs. Our assessment of this

proposal indicates that it’s economic

impact is minimal. Since its costs and

benefits do not make it a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as defined in the

Order, we have not prepared a

‘‘regulatory evaluation,’’ which is the

written cost/benefit analysis ordinarily

required for all rulemaking proposals

under the DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures. We do not need to do the

latter analysis where the economic

impact of a proposal is minimal.

AQP is not mandatory, consequently,

those operators who choose to

participate in the program would do so

only if it was in their best interest.

Enough operators have found it in their

best interest that AQP has become an

important means for meeting the

requirements for air carrier training

programs. AQP gives air carriers

flexibility in meeting the safety goals of

the training programs in 14 CFR parts

121 and 135 without sacrificing any of

the safety benefits derived from those

programs. Thus, extending AQP for

another 5 years would not impose any

additional costs nor decrease the

present level of safety. Because this

proposal is extending an existing,

voluntary program that has become an

important means for some operators to

comply with training requirements, the

FAA finds that a detailed regulatory

evaluation is not necessary.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of

regulatory issuance that agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objective

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 that principle,

the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of

small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations,

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant economic

37838 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act

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.

This rulemaking allows certain air

carriers to continue participating in a

voluntary, alternative method for

qualifying, training and certifying, and

otherwise ensuring competency of

crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, and

other operational personnel, instructors,

and evaluators who are required to be

trained or qualified under 14 CFR parts

121 and 135. As such, this rulemaking

would not impose any additional cost

on those air carriers. Consequently, the

FAA certifies that the rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small air carriers.

International Trade Impact Analysis

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979

prohibits Federal agencies from

engaging in any standards or related

activities that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. Legitimate domestic

objectives, such as safety, are not

considered unnecessary obstacles. The

statute also requires consideration of

international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis for

U.S. standards. In addition, consistent

with the Administration’s belief in the

general superiority and desirability of

free trade, it is the policy of the

Administration to remove or diminish

to the extent feasible, barriers to

international trade, including both

barriers affecting the export of American

goods and services to foreign countries

and barriers affecting the import of

foreign goods and services into the

United States.

In accordance with the above statute

and policy, the FAA has assessed the

potential effect of this proposed rule

and has determined that it would have

only a domestic impact and therefore no

affect on any trade-sensitive activity.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The

FAA has determined that this action

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

the FAA has determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking would not have

federalism implications.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2

U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected

officers (or their designees) of State,

local, and tribal governments on a

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act is any provision in a Federal agency

regulation that will impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. Section 203

of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1553, which

supplements section 204(a), provides

that before establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

The FAA determines that this

proposal does not contain a significant

intergovernmental or private sector

mandate as defined by the Act.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for

a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the notice has

been assessed in accordance with the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA) Pub. L. 94–163, as amended (43

U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It

has been determined that the notice is

not a major regulatory action under the

provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

Air safety, Air transportation,

Aviation safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 63

Air safety, Air transportation, Airmen,

Aviation safety, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 65

Airman, Aviation safety, Air

transportation, Aircraft.

14 CFR Part 108

Airplane operator security, Aviation

security, Aviation safety, Air

transportation, Air carriers, Airlines,

Security measures, Transportation,

Weapons.

14 CFR Part 121

Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Aviation

safety, Pilots, Safety.

14 CFR Part 135

Air carriers, Air transportation,

Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety, Pilots.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend SFAR 58 (14 CFR

parts 61, 63, 65, 108, 121, and 135) of

title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 61

continues to read as follows:

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

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,

45301–45303.

2. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40108, 40113,

44701–44703, 44710, 44712, 44714, 44716,

44717, 44722, 45303.

3. The authority citation for part 65

continues to read as follows:

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

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,

45301–45302.

4. The authority citation for part 108

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 5103, 40113,

40119, 44701–44702, 44705, 44901–44905,

44907, 44913–44914, 44932, 44935–44936,

46105.

5. The authority citation for part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37839

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 449112, 46105.

6. The authority citation for part 135

continues to read as follows:

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

44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 44715–

44717, 44722.

7. SFAR 58 is amended by revising

the expiration date in paragraph 13.

* * * * *

13. Expiration. This Special Federal

Aviation Regulation terminates on

October 2, 2005, unless sooner

terminated.

Issued in Washington, DC on June 8, 2000.

L. Nicholas Lacey,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15206 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P