[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37836-37839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15206]



[[Page 37835]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 61, et al.



Advanced Qualification Program; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 37836]]


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

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 self-addressed, 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

[[Page 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 seconds-in-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 single-crewmember 
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

[[Page 37838]]

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,

[[Page 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